alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/03/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       47,565
COMMITMENTS
   6,333    3,641    7,242   23,593   23,970   37,169   34,853   10,396   12,712

CHANGES FROM 10/27/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,885)
    -552      535      865    1,370       43    1,682    1,442      203      443

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.3      7.7     15.2     49.6     50.4     78.1     73.3     21.9     26.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       65)
       9       13       17       31       27       51       52
```

----

Updated November 6, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4135 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4135

  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove the statue to the 
memory and in honor of Albert Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the 
             District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2019

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove the statue to the 
memory and in honor of Albert Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the 
             District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF STATUE OF ALBERT PIKE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
            (1) The Supreme Council of the Inspectors-General of the 
        Thirty-Third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite 
        of Freemasonry for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United 
        States of America supports the removal of the statue to the 
        memory of Albert Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the 
        District of Columbia due to its divisive nature.
            (2) The Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Council 
        of the District of Columbia support the removal of the Albert 
        Pike statue from its current location.
    (b) Removal.--After non-Federal funds are made available for this 
purpose, the Secretary of the Interior shall remove the statue to the 
memory and in honor of Albert Pike erected near Judiciary Square in the 
District of Columbia under the ``Joint Resolution Granting permission 
for the erection of a monument or statue in Washington City, District 
of Columbia, in honor of the late Albert Pike.'', approved April 9, 
1898 (30 Stat. 737).
    (c) No Use of Federal Funds.--No Federal funds may be used to carry 
out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0616n.06
No. 11-3701
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
RAYSHAI D M. ROBI

NSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
HEAL TH AL L I ANCE OF CI NCI NNATI ; DEPARTMENT OF PUBL I C SAFETY F OR THE HEA L TH AL L I ANCE OF CI NCI NNATI ; PAUL PHI L L I PS, I n his officia l and individual capa cities; KAREN BO SL EY, I n her of

ficial a nd individual capa cities; J OHN DO ES,
Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF OHI O

Before: M ARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge. *

P ER CURIAM
. Ray shaid M. Robinson, an Ohio resident proce ed i ng pro se , appea ls a jury ’s ver dict rende red a g ainst him in hi s civil rights a ction filed pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983.
On April 16, 2008, two secur ity office rs employ ed by Hea lth Alliance of Gre ater Cincinnati observe d Robinson walking throu g h a n a r e a o n th e H e a lt

h A ll ia n c e c a mpus marke d “no trespassing .” The office rs instructed Robinson to stop. Once stopped, Robinson beca me defia nt an d beg an cursing
at the office rs. The office rs order ed Robinson to the g round. He complied. As t h e o fficers attempted to handcuf

f Robinson, he moved his arm in what the office rs perc eived to be a threa tening

manner
. Consequently , both office rs deploy ed t h ei r t as er s. After having been tased, Robinson beca me compliant and w a s u lt ima tely char g ed with resisting arr est, obstructing officia l business, and disorderly conduct. I n J uly

2008, Robinson was found not g uilty on all char g es.

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Hood, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 11-3701 - 2 -
I n Marc h 2009, Robinson filed a complaint ag ainst the defe ndants pursuant to § 1983. After

a seven day trial, a jury enter ed a verdic t in favor of all the defe ndants. On appea l, Robinson arg ues that he was denied a fair trial beca use 1) the jury ignor ed the evidenc e, 2) th e d i s t rict court incorre ctly decide d the facts, and 3) the di strict court erre d in deny ing his challeng e under Bat son v. Kentuck

y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
As the appellant, Robinson must “orde r from the re p o rt er a transcr ipt of such parts of the
proce eding s not alre ady on file as [he] considers nece ssary .” Fe d. R. App. P. 10(b)( 1)(A)

. Robinson order ed only an excerpt of the transcr ipt from the second day of trial, which contains the defe ndants’ counsel’s opening s t at ement. This excerpt provides no support for any of Robinson’s claims. Consequently , we are left with no basis on which to conduct a mean i n gful revie w. There fore , Robinson’s cl ai m s ra ised on appea l are deeme d waived. See Fe d. R. App. P

. 10(b)( 2); Hawley v. City of Cl eve land , 24 F.3d 814, 820–22 (6th Cir. 1994). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.
# L_2014058EN.01002401.xml

| 27.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/24

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 170/2013

of 8 October 2013

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1205/2012 of 14 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 802/2010 as regards the company performance (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1205/2012 of 14 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 802/2010 as regards the company performance (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 56be (Commission Regulation (EU) No 802/2010) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32012 R 1205: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1205/2012 of 14 December 2012 (OJ L 347, 15.12.2012, p. 10).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32012 R 1205: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1205/2012 of 14 December 2012 (OJ L 347, 15.12.2012, p. 10).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1205/2012 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 October 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 15.12.2012, p. 10.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 414 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to include algal blooms in the definition of a major disaster, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2019 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include algal blooms in the definition of a major disaster, 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 ‘‘Protecting Local Com5 munities from Harmful Algal Blooms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALGAL BLOOMS. 

7 Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

8 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 414 IH

1 is amended by striking ‘‘or drought’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘drought, or algal blooms’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
CYAN, INC., et al., petitioners, v. BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, et al.

No. 15-1439.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted in part, and the time is to be divided as a follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 25 minutes for respondents, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.