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

House Calendar No. 213 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1509 

[Report No. 111–535] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1722) to improve teleworking 

in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 

2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing 

a telework program that allows employees to telework 

at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 

administrative workweeks, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by de4 veloping a telework program that allows employees to 

5 telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1509 RH 

1 2 administrative workweeks, and for other purposes. All 

2 points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

3 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

4 The amendment in the nature of a substitute rec5 ommended by the Committee on Oversight and Govern6 ment Reform now printed in the bill, modified by the 

7 amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 

8 Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 

9 adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

10 All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amend11 ed, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 

12 as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage with13 out intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

14 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

15 minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Gov16 ernment Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with 

17 or without instructions. 

18 SEC. 2. House Resolution 1496 is laid on the table. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 213 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1509 

[Report No. 111–535] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1722) 

weeks, and for other purposes. hours worked in every 2 administrative workployees to telework at least 20 percent of the developing a telework program that allows emto improve teleworking in executive agencies by 

JULY 13, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

534 

KA 12-01048 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

CORY L. IVERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered April 10, 2012. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession

of a controlled substance in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Franklin J. NERO, Sr., petitioner, v. MAYAN MAINSTREET INVESTORS 1, LLC, et al.

No. 16-432.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: KERMIT W. QUAINTANCE, "Q" COMMODITIES CO., AND EARL B. HOGLUND 

DOCKET NUMBER: 176 

DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1974 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF INITIAL DECISION FOR EARL B. HUGLUND 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Kermit W. Quaintance, "Q" Commodities Co., and Earl B. Hoglund, 

Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 176 

Notice of Effective Date of Initial Decision for Earl B. Hoglund 

The attached Initial Decision which was issued by Administrative Law Judge 

John A. Campbell on September 13, 1974, in this proceeding, has not been 

appealed to the Secretary within the allotted time. 

In accordance with the applicable rules of practice the decision became final 

on October 24, 1974, and the cease and desist provisions thereof became 

effective on October 24, 1974. The prohibition of trading and denial of trading 

privileges will become effective on November 23, 1974. 

Dated: October 25, 1974 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Eugene R. Meyer 

Hearing Clerk 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
WEI ZHOU, petitioner, v. MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY.

No. 16-5489.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
In re Helen RANSOM, petitioner.

No. 16-6322.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
SUPPLEMENT TO FIDELITY'S TARGETED
INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS
DECEMBER 30, 1997 PROSPECTUS
   The following information replaces similar information found in the
"Charter" section on page P-29:    
   Alexandra Edzard is manager of Germany and France, which she has
managed since September 1996 and May 1998, respectively. Ms. Edzard
joined Fidelity International, Limited as an analyst in 1994.
Previously, she was an investment officer for Deutsche Bank AG, in
London, from 1991 to 1994.    
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                            <C>                           <C>                       
FISCAL YEARS ENDED OCTOBER 31  AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL RETURNS  CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURNS  
 
</TABLE>
 
 
<ERROR: WIDE TABLE>
ERROR: THE FOLLOWING TABLE: "1X7" IS TOO WIDE!
TABLE WIDTH IS 137 CHARACTERS.
 
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                               <C>           <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>         
                                   PAST 1 YEAR   PAST 5 YEARS    LIFE OF FUND    PAST 1 YEAR    PAST 5 YEARS    LIFE OF FUND 
 
HONG KONG AND CHINA FUNDG           -13.36%       N/A             6.06%           -13.36%       N/A              12.48%     
 
HONG KONG AND CHINA FUND
(LOAD ADJ.A)                        -15.96%       N/A             4.45%           -15.96%       N/A              9.11%      
 
HANG SENG INDEX                     -12.53%       N/A             7.26%           -12.53%       N/A              15.05%     
 
</TABLE>
 
The following information replaces similar information found in the
"Performance" section on page P-25:
YEAR-BY-YEAR TOTAL RETURNS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                       <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>  <C>     <C>  
CALENDAR YEARS                                                         1996         
 
HONG KONG AND CHINA FUND                                               40.99%       
 
HANG SENG INDEX                                                        37.50%       
 
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX                                                   3.32%        
 
</TABLE>
 
The following information replaces similar information found in t   he
    "Performance" section on page P-28:
(small solid bullet) Southeast Asia Fund is compared to the Lipper
Pacific ex-Japan Funds Average, which reflects the performance of 76
funds investing in the Pacific region excluding Japan.
Anthony Michael FLINT, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-6169.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
|        |        |                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (a)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                               |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | (b)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. |

|                                       |                       |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| /s/ Charles N. Funk                   |
| Charles N. Funk                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:                                 | November 3, 2010 |
Keith K. LY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6374.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Brandon DYE, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 16-6181.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation



In connection with the Annual Report of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 12, 2004



|                                                |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MATTHEW K. ROSE                          |  | /s/    THOMAS N. HUND                               
|Matthew K. Rose                                 |  | Thomas N. Hund                                      
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and will be retained by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Garnett Gilbert SMITH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6548.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# The Attorney General of Texas September 7, 1978
JOHN L. HILL AttorneyGeneral
Honorable Charles Murphy, Director Texas Aeronautics Commission P. 0. Box12607,Capitol Station Austin, Texas 787ll Opinion No.H- 1239 Re: Responsibility for maintenance of airports constructed instate parks. Dear Mr.Murphy: You inform us that the Texas Aeronautics Commission has constructed airports at Lake Whitney State Park and at Falcon State Park. Seegenerally V.T.C.S. art. 46c-6, subdiv. 10(Aeronautics Commission may make grants to state agencies for airport construction). The airstrips are in need of maintenance. Youask which state agency isresponsible for the maintenance of airports constructed in state parks with funds appropriated to the Texas Aeronautics Commission. The Parks and Wildlife Code places all state parks under the confrol and custody ofthe Parks and Wildlife Department. Sec. 13.001. The department has authority to prepare and revise a statewide plan for the development of the state’s outdoor recreation resources, to develop, operate, and maintain outdoor facilities, and to improve and equip park sites. Sees. 13.002, 13.003. The operation, maintenance, andimprovement ofstate parks istobe financed from the general revenue fund, the state parks fund, other funds authorized by law, and donations received for that purpose. Sec. 13.004. The Parks and Wildlife Department informs us that it has in the past performed minor repairs and maintenance on the a&trips. Webelieve the department has the authority and responsibility to maintain park facilities, including airstrips, from funds available for that purpose. The fact that the Parks and Wildlife Department rather than the Texas Aeronautics Commission has the responsibility to maintain the airstrips does not imply a requirement that the department continue to maintain the facilities after it determines the airstrips are nolonger needed.

p. 4938Honorable Charles Murphy - Page 2 (H-1239)

SUMMARY The Department of Parks and Wildlife isresponsible for the maintenance ofairports constructed instate parks.

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED:

DAVIDM.KENDALL,First Assis

C.ROBERTHEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

P. 4939
Javier GUZMAN-FERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6112.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,941,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,204,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,654
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,133,288
<PP&E>                                         991,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                 358,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,079,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          691,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,062
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,218,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,079,337
<SALES>                                     11,736,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,736,869
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,676,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             60,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL

#### In re Grievance of John S. Wilde

April 16, 1986

By Judge W. Park Lemmond, Jr.

Pursuant to the City of Hopewell grievance procedures, John S. Wilde perfected an appeal to this Court on the issue of grievability. The City Manager transmitted the requisite documentation in a timely fashion to the Court. A hearing was conducted on March 28, 1986.

The genesis of this proceeding was Mr. Wilde’s seeking a promotion and not receiving it. The City took the position that this complaint was not grievable under the grievance procedures, specifically § 13.3-3d. This section states that a failure to be promoted (except where the employee can show established promotional policies or procedures were not followed or applied fairly) is not grievable.

This section thus forms the issue for determination by the Court. The employee, of course, seeking to establish the grievability, has the burden of proving that established promotional policies and procedures were not followed or applied fairly.

The employee did not present evidence as to established promotional policies and procedures. The evidence consisted largely of a comparison of work experience and expertise among those considered for the position.

The Court finds that the employee did not carry the burden of proof on the issue before the Court and hence confirms the decision of the City Manager that the matter was non-grievable.

It is encouraging to see that Mr. Wilde did in fact receive the promotion he was seeking, although it was not the specific position that he desired and for which he felt best qualified. The Court trusts that Mr. Wilde’s utilization of the grievance process will not impact adversely upon him at any time.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137689

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 137689 COA: 272777 Wayne CC: 06-006206 LEANDREW LIDDELL, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10945 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
AARON BEASLEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 484

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aaron Beasley pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and he received a sentence of 57 months in prison, to be followed by a two

- year term of supervised release. On ap peal, Beasley asserts that the district court erred in the sentencing calculations because his prior Texas convictions for aggravated robbery did not constitute the enumerated offense of “robbery” under U.S.S.G.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10945 Document: 00514286303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2017No. 17

- 10945

2 § 4B1.2. As he concedes, however, his claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Santiesteban

- Hernandez , 469 F.3d 376, 380

- 81 (5th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 541,
547

- 63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). In addition, Beasley argues that § 922(g)(1) exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it is not necessary to prove that his possession of the firearm was in or affected interstate commerce. In support of his assertion, he relies on Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v . Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519 (2012). However, he acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 143

- 46 (5th Cir. 2013). In his final ground for relief, Beasley cites to Flores

- Figueroa v. United States , 556 U.S. 6 46 (2009), to s upport his proposition that his convictions may not stand because the indictment did not allege and Beasley did not admit that he knew his possession of the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. A conviction under § 922(g)(1) req uires proof that the defendant knew he possessed the firearm but does not require knowledge of the interstate nexus. United States v. Dancy , 861 F.2d 77, 81

- 82 (5th Cir. 1988). In United States

v. Rose , 587 F.3d 695, 705 (5th Cir. 2009), this court held that Dancy remained good law even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Flores

- Figueroa , which addressed the mens rea element of a different statute. Accordingly, as Beasley concedes, his argument is foreclosed. In light of the foregoing, Beasley’s motio n for summary disposition is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10945 Document: 00514286303 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2017
Wendell BROWN, nka Menes Ankh El, petitioner, v. INDIANA, et al.

No. 16-6518.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.