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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5219 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5219

    To withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, from 
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under 
   all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral 
                   materials, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2010

  Mr. Heller (for himself, Ms. Titus, and Ms. Berkley) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, from 
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under 
   all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral 
                   materials, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF SLOAN HILLS AREA OF CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

    (a) Definition of Federal Land.--In this section, the term 
``Federal land'' means the land identified as the ``Withdrawal Zone'' 
on the map entitled ``Sloan Hills Area'' and dated May 5, 2010.
    (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on the date 
of introduction of this Act, the Federal land is withdrawn from all 
forms of--
            (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
            (2) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
        geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2108]

[[Page 6079]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Office of Research and Development; Government Owned Invention 
Available for Licensing

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA.

ACTION: Notice of government owned invention available for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for 
licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or 
CRADA Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious 
commercialization of results of federally funded research and 
development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend 
market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for 
licensing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
the invention may be obtained by writing to: Sal Sheredos, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Acting Director Technology Transfer Program, 
Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20420; fax: (202) 254-0473; e-mail at: [email protected]. 
Any request for information should include the Number and Title for the 
relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained 
from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 
Washington, DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is: 
U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/600,797 ``Human and Mouse 
Alkaline Ceramidase 1 and Skin Disease''.

    Dated: January 26, 2005.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-2108 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```
# C_2007022EN.01000101.xml

| 31.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/1

---

Commission Opinion of 30 January 2007 concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Centraco Plant in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the French text is authentic)

(2007/C 22/01)

On 17 July 2006, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Centraco Plant.

On the basis of the General Data, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 180 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 180 km.

| 2. | The overall result of the planned modification will be to interchange the authorisations for airborne and liquid discharges of tritium (while maintaining the total annual waste stream), to increase the discharge limits for alpha emitters and to establish specific limits for iodine 129. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The overall result of the planned modification will be to interchange the authorisations for airborne and liquid discharges of tritium (while maintaining the total annual waste stream), to increase the discharge limits for alpha emitters and to establish specific limits for iodine 129.

| 3. | During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health. |
| --- | --- |

3.

During normal operation, the planned modification will not cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to any significant effect from the point of view of health on the population of another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the initial General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to any significant effect from the point of view of health on the population of another Member State.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the Centraco Plant in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---
1 The HONORABLE ANN D. MONTGOMERY, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2011

___________ Arthur D ’ Amario, III, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Bureau of Prisons, Sued as U.S. * [UNPUBLISHED] Bureau of Prisons, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2003 Filed: February 10, 2003

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arthur D ’ Amario appeals the district court ’ s 1order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. D ’ Amario sought relief from the district court ’ s underlying judgment, which he did not timely appeal, denying his third 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as abusive, and denying his motion for sanctions against the government attorney. In support of Rule 60(b) relief, D ’ Amario argued he had been unable to obtain a transcript that he needed to support his petition until after judgment-2- was entered. However, we agree with the district court that the transcript would have made no difference in the disposition of D’Amario’s claims and therefore was not newly discovered evidence that warranted Rule 60(b) relief. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot D ’ Amario ’ s motion for summary disposition. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 4, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00923-CR

No. 05-13-00933-CR

REBECCA JEAN CAGLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-45513-P, F10-11213-P

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

Rebecca Jean Cagle appeals from the adjudication of her guilt for theft of property less 

than $1,500, having two prior theft convictions and theft of property valued at $1,500 or more 

but less than $20,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4) (West Supp. 2013). The 

trial court assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail in each case. On appeal, 

appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no 

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 
-2-

[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of 

her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 2014 

WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and 

appellate counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

130923F.U05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REBECCA JEAN CAGLE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00923-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F11-45513-P).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, 

Justices Moseley and FitzGerald 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered August 4, 2014.
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REBECCA JEAN CAGLE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00933-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F10-11213-P).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, 

Justices Moseley and FitzGerald 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered August 4, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                       117
<INVENTORY>                                      9,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,465
<PP&E>                                           4,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,636
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         33
<COMMON>                                           370
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,605
<SALES>                                         17,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,852
<CGS>                                           14,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    208
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       208
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Kansas City, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1249

Issued: September 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 12, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an August 12, 2020 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1249.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals, which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of 

OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the August 12, 2020 decision was February 8, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until February 12, 2021, more than 180 days after the

August 12, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1249 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1249 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
```

                                                                                    Exhibit 10

                              **NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                       AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                      MATERIAL CONTRACTS**

The following documents of Navistar Financial Corporation are incorporated herein by
reference:

10.45     Indenture dated as of June 5, 2003,  between  Navistar  Financial 2003-A Owner Trust
          and The Bank of New York, as Indenture  Trustee,  with respect to Navistar Financial
          2003-A Owner Trust.  Filed as Exhibit 4.2 to Navistar  Financial Retail  Receivables
          Corporation's Form 8-K dated June 11, 2003.  Registration No. 333-67112.

10.46     Series 2003-1  Supplement to the Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement  dated as of July
          13, 2003, among Navistar  Financial  Corporation,  as Servicer,  Navistar  Financial
          Securities  Corporation,  as  Seller,  and the Bank of New  York,  as  Master  Trust
          Trustee  on behalf of the Series  2003-1  Certificateholders.  Filed as Exhibit  4.1
          to  Navistar  Financial  Securities  Corporation's  Form 8-K  dated  July 11,  2003.
          Registration No. 333-102345-01.
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES CERTIFICATIONS I, Pamela Turbeville, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Navistar
Financial Corporation, subsidiary of International Truck and Engine
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and E-17




---



##### 



Exhibit 31.1 NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES CERTIFICATIONS  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Date March 8, 2004 /s/ Pamela TurbevillePamela Turbeville
(Principal Executive Officer)
 E-18
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0034. OUTFRONT MEDIA, LLC v. CITY OF ATLANTA BOARD OF

ZONING ADJUSTMENT et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10

days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a

copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV299965

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 27, 2018

08/27/2018
```

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Navistar  Financial  Corporation (the
"Corporation"),  subsidiary of International  Truck and Engine  Corporation,  on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Phyllis E. Cochran,
Principal Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant toss.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 Corporation.

/s/ Phyllis E. Cochran
Phyllis E. Cochran
Principal Executive Officer
March 14, 2003

This   certification   accompanies   the  Report   pursuant  toss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Corporation for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Navistar  Financial  Corporation (the
"Corporation"),  subsidiary of International  Truck and Engine  Corporation,  on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Andrew J. Cederoth,
Principal Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant toss.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 Corporation.

/s/ Andrew J. Cederoth
Andrew J. Cederoth
Principal Financial Officer
March 14, 2003

This   certification   accompanies   the  Report   pursuant  toss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Corporation for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```