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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2377 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a maximum contaminant 

level goal and promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation 

for total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2019 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. 

TONKO, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

publish a maximum contaminant level goal and promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for 

total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, 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 ‘‘Protect Drinking 

5 Water from PFAS Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2377 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR REGULATIONS ON PFAS. 

2 Section 1412(b)(12) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

3 (42 U.S.C. 300g–1(b)(12)) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(C) PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUB6 STANCES.—Notwithstanding any other deadline 

7 established in this subsection, not later than 2 

8 years after the date of enactment of this sub9 paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a 

10 maximum contaminant level goal and promul11 gate a national primary drinking water regula12 tion for total per- and polyfluoroalkyl sub13 stances.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Defense

###### Defense Logistics Agency

# AGENCY:

Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of membership—2001 DLA PRB.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Logistics Agency Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). The publication of PRB composition is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations to the Director, Defense logistics Agency, with respect to pay level adjustments and performance awards, and other actions related to management of the SES cadre.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 1, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Defense Logistics Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, STE 2533, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6221.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Karon Webb, SES Program Manager, HQC Human Resources Office, Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense, (703) 767-6427.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DLA career executives appointed to serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 1-year term, which begins on July 1, 2001.

PRB CHAIR:

Mr. Phillip Steely, Executive Director

MEMBERS:

Mr. Frank Lotts, Deputy Director, Logistics Operations

Ms. Phyllis Campbell, Deputy Commander, Defense Distribution Center

Dr. Linda Furiga, Comptroller

RADM Raymond A. Archer III, SC, USN

Vice Director, Defense Logistics Agency

[FR Doc. 01-13155  Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3620-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Edward Prindle, Appellant.

Submitted January 19, 2010;

decided February 11, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### Morgan, L. *&*T. S. S. Co. *v.*De Arrotegui.1

*District Court, E. D. New York.*

May 7, 1885.

Admiralty—Pleading—Names oe Parties—Exception.

An averment in an answer in an action for salvage that “other insurance companies” were insurers of property saved is insufficient, in the. absence of an averment that their names are unknown.

In Admiralty. Exception to answer.

*Charles H. Tweed*and *E. D. Benedict,*for libelant.

*Evarts, Southmayd & Choate, (Treadwell Cleveland,)*for claimant.

1

 Reported by it. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict., Esqs., of tho New York bar.

Benedict, J.

The exception taken to the answer is equivalent to a motion to make more definite and certain the averment of the second article of the answer, where it is alleged that “the Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Company, Limited, and other insurance companies, were insurers” of the property saved. Manifestly this averment is uncertain, in that it does not designate by name the insurance companies referred to by the words “other insurance companies.” In the absence of an averment that the names of such other insurance companies are unknown to the defendants, the allegation in the second article of the answer is insufficient.

Exception sustained, with leave to defendants to amend.
# C_2017347EN.01004401.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Action brought on 15 August 2017 — L-Shop-Team v EUIPO (bags2GO)

(Case T-561/17)

(2017/C 347/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L-Shop-Team GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: A. Sautter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bags2GO’ — Application for registration No 15 356 901

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 1650/2016-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40351

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SOTERO ELENO BOTELLO-YALLEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-843

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sotero Eleno

Botello-Yallez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2021044EN.01003802.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Healthspan Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-703/18) (1)

(2021/C 44/44)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
# C_2019263EN.01002101.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of OG (C-508/18), PI (C-82/19 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Legal position - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case - No guarantee of independence)

(2019/C 263/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OG (C-508/18) and PI (C-82/19 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU are joined for the purposes of the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU are joined for the purposes of the judgment.

| 2. | The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including public prosecutors’ offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a decision to issue a European arrest warrant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The concept of an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as not including public prosecutors’ offices of a Member State which are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a decision to issue a European arrest warrant.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.

OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1323]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3317]


State of Texas

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 
January 8, 2001, I find that the following Counties in the State of 
Texas constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by a severe 
winter ice storm beginning on December 12, 2000 and continuing: Bowie, 
Cass and Red River Counties. Applications for loans for physical damage 
as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business 
on March 9, 2001, and for loans for economic injury until the close of 
business on October 9, 2001 at the address listed below or other 
locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Disaster Area 3 Office, 4400 Amon Carter Blvd., Suite 102, Fort Worth, 
TX 76155.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed 
until the specified date at the above location: Delta, Franklin, 
Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris and Titus Counties in Texas; Caddo 
County in Louisiana; Choctaw and McCurtain Counties in Oklahoma.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
    Homeowners with credit available elsewhere..............       7.000
    Homeowners without credit available elsewhere...........       3.500
    Businesses with credit available elsewhere..............       8.000
    Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit         4.000
     available elsewhere....................................
    Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit        7.000
     available elsewhere....................................
For Economic Injury:
    Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without         4.000
     credit available elsewhere.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 331711. 
For economic injury the numbers are 9K3700 for Texas, 9K3800 for 
Louisiana, 9K3900 for Oklahoma.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: January 10, 2001.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-1323 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
#### James Knapp et al., Respondents-Appellants, v James R. Hughes et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted September 6, 2011;

decided December 13, 2011

Reported below, 25 AD3d 886.

Motion by defendants for leave to appeal granted. Motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it *828does not lie, plaintiffs previously having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the January 2006 Appellate Division order from which leave to appeal is currently sought (7 NY3d 921 [2006]). Moreover, no motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal would lie to the Court of Appeals from the July 2011 Supreme Court judgment to bring up for review the January 2006 Appellate Division order as plaintiffs have appealed that judgment to the Appellate Division and simultaneous appeals do not lie to both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals *(see Parker v Rogerson,*35 NY2d 751, 753 [1974]).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20709

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL AMANDO FLORES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-356-3

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Manuel Amando Flores,

Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Flores has filed a response in which he argues, inter alia, that

counsel was ineffective for not arguing at sentencing and on

appeal that Flores should receive a sentencing adjustment for his

role in the offense and should not receive a sentencing

adjustment for possession of a firearm. Flores also moves for

the appointment of new counsel or, alternatively, to remand his
No. 05-20709

-2-

case to allow the district court to reconsider its guidelines

rulings. The record is sufficiently developed to allow

consideration of Flores’s claims of ineffectiveness. See United

States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987).

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Flores’s response shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All other

outstanding motions are DENIED.
(KPMG LOGO)
    
    KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants
600 boul. de Maisonneuve Ouest
Suite 1500
Tour KPMG
Montréal, Québec H3A 0A3
    
    Telephone
Telefax
Internet
    
    (514) 840-2100
(514) 840-2187
www.kpmg.ca
 
  RE:
    
    Commission File Number: 333-13792- Quebecor Media inc.
  
    
    the appointment of their new auditors and the new auditors audit;
    
    the approval of the audit committee of the change of auditors;
    
    the consultation with their new auditors regarding the matters noted in paragraph 4; and
    
    the communication and response of their new auditors regarding the matters noted in paragraph 5.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 3, 2002

Before

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 01-1973

MARCUS DIXON, Appeal from the United States 

Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern 

District of Illinois.

v.

THOMAS PAGE, et al. No. 97-323-GPM

Defendants-Appellees.

G. Patrick Murphy, 

Chief Judge.

ORDER

On June 11, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to amend our opinion of May 28,

2002, asserting that we did not correctly quote a representation made at oral argument. 

Although we do not believe that the quotation in the Opinion was made in error, we

believe that the Opinion should be modified in the interest of clarity. Therefore, this

Opinion is hereby amended by deleting, on lines 8-9 and 12 of page 9 of the Slip

Opinion, the bold-faced text:

But counsel represented that under the grievance process in Illinois, Dixon could

appeal directly to the Director after waiting for thirty days to be transferred,

thus bypassing the initial steps required for the filing of a new grievance. See 20

Ill. Admin. Code § 504.850(a) (1998) (stating that “if after receiving a response . . .,

the committed person still feels that the problem, complaint or grievance has not

been resolved to his or her satisfaction, he or she may appeal in writing to the

Director within 30 days after receipt of the response”). 
Page 2 No. 01-1973

and substituting the following bold-faced text and adding the footnote: 

But counsel represented that under the grievance process in Illinois, Dixon could

appeal directly to the Director if he had not, in fact, been transferred, thus

bypassing the initial steps required for the filing of a new grievance. See 20 Ill.

Admin. Code § 504.850(a) (1998) (stating that “if after receiving the response . . .,

the committed person still feels that the problem, complaint or grievance has not

been resolved to his or her satisfaction, he or she may appeal in writing to the

Director within 30 days after receipt of the response”).FN1

FN1. A prisoner in Dixon’s situation may face issues of timing. He must appeal

within 30 days of a “response.” The “response” in the present case would have

to include the failure to act on a decision to transfer, as well as, presumably, the

decision itself. (Otherwise, there would be nothing for the prisoner to appeal.) 

And the date of the “response” would be difficult or impossible for the prisoner

to determine. An immediate appeal might be premature since the prison system

must be allowed some reasonable time (but no longer) to process a transfer

decision. Because the prisoner won a transfer decision, the burden should be on

the prison system to ensure that the prisoner is properly informed about when

he can appeal a delay in, or reversal of, his promised transfer.
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Approach Resources Inc.
(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 APPROACH RESOURCES INC.Date: November 18, 2009
    /s/ Steven P. SmartSteven P. SmartExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13217]



[[Page 28893]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-81-000]


Alternate Power Source, Inc., Complainant, v. ISO New England, 
Inc., Respondents.; Notice of Complaint

May 21, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 17, 2000, Alternate Power Source, Inc., 
filed a Complaint against the ISO New England, Inc. challenging the 
denial of a billing adjustment request.
    Copies of said filing have been served upon NEPOOL Participants, 
the ISO New England, Inc., as well as upon the utility regulatory 
agencies of the six New England States.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 6, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for 
assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before 
June 6, 2001. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-13217 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M