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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 242 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 242

  To require the Secretary of Agriculture to release reversionary and 
 reserved interests in certain land in the Coconino National Forest in 
                         the State of Arizona.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2019

Ms. McSally (for herself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Agriculture to release reversionary and 
 reserved interests in certain land in the Coconino National Forest in 
                         the State of Arizona.

    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 ``Lowell Observatory Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Observatory.--The term ``Observatory'' means the Lowell 
        Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service.

SEC. 3. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY AND RESERVED INTERESTS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, if the 
Observatory makes a written request to the Secretary for conveyance of 
the parcel of land described in subsection (b) not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to 
the Observatory, without consideration and by quitclaim deed, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that parcel 
of land.
    (b) Land Described.--The parcel of land to be conveyed under 
subsection (a) is the National Forest System land--
            (1) conveyed by the United States to Percival Lowell and 
        his heirs by the Act entitled ``An Act granting certain lands 
        in the Coconino National Forest, in Arizona, for observatory 
        purposes'', approved May 30, 1910 (36 Stat. 452; chapter 261); 
        and
            (2) described as sec. 17, T. 21 N., R. 7 E., of the Gila 
        and Salt River base and meridian in Coconino County, Arizona.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, an individual,

NED NEWCOMER, an individual and

JARED ADLER, an individual, on their

own behalf and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 4:10-cv-00477-SPM-WCS

INTEGRACLICK, INC., a Delaware

corporation d/b/a CLICKBOOTH,

JUST THINK MEDIA, a Canadian

company d/b/a FAREND SERVICES

LIMITED,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Quash Service

Pursuant to Local Rules 6.1 and 7.1, Plaintiffs move for an order extending the

time for them to respond to Defendant 1021018 Alberta, Ltd.’s Motion to Quash

Service of Process and Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. #5) from November 17, 2010 to

December 17, 2010, in conformity with the attached stipulation of the parties.

Case 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS Document 12 Filed 11/17/10 Page 1 of 2
 /s David P. Healy 

David P. Healy (940410)

2846-B Remington Green Cr.

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(850) 222-5400

(850) 222-7339 (fax)

Counsel to Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I filed the foregoing using the CM/ECF filing

systems which will cause a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be electronically

transmitted to all counsel of record.

/s David P. Healy 

Case 4:10-cv-00477-SPM -WCS Document 12 Filed 11/17/10 Page 2 of 2
Understanding Your Elastomeric Respirator

September 2023 Elastomeric Quarter Facepiece Respirator

• Covers your nose and mouth, and seals between your 

chin and lower lip

• Assigned Protection Factor (APF) = 5

• Can have an exhalation valve or no valve

• Protects against particles, gases, or vapors when 

equipped with the proper filter or cartridge*

Elastomeric Half Mask Respirator (EHMR)

• Covers your nose and mouth, and seals under your chin

• APF = 10

• Available in multiple sizes to fit a diverse user population

• EHMR with an exhalation valve

– Your inhaled breath enters through the filter or cartridge 

material and your unfiltered exhaled breath exits through 

the exhalation valve

– Exhalation valve increases comfort by reducing breathing 

resistance, removing moisture, and reducing CO2

concentrations inside the respirator

– Protects against particles, gases, or vapors when 

equipped with the proper filter or cartridge

• EHMR with no exhalation valve

– Your inhaled breath enters through the filter material and 

your exhaled breath exits through the same filter

– Protects against particles only

– Cannot be used with gas or vapor cartridges

• EHMR with an exhalation valve filter

– Your inhaled breath enters through the filter material and 

your exhaled breath is filtered after it passes through the 

exhalation valve

– Protects against particles, gases, or vapors when 

equipped with the proper filter or cartridge*

EHMR with an 

exhalation valve

EHMR with no 

exhalation valve

EHMR with an 

exhalation valve filter

Elastomeric Full Facepiece Respirator

• Covers your whole face, from roughly the hairline to 

below the chin, and provides eye protection

• APF = 50†

• Available in multiple sizes to fit a diverse user population

• Has an exhalation valve

• Your inhaled breath enters through the filter or cartridge material and 

your unfiltered exhaled breath exits through the exhalation valve

• Protects against particles, gases, or vapors when equipped 

with the proper filter, cartridge, or canister

All illustrations 

by NIOSH

*Currently, no NIOSH Approved® respirators of this kind are approved for use with gas or vapor cartridges. †

An APF of 50 can only be achieved if the respirator is quantitatively fit tested. If the respirator is 

qualitatively fit tested, it will have an APF of 10.

NIOSH Approved is a certification mark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

registered in the United States and several international jurisdictions.

For more information, visit cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/.

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CINDE R. TROUTMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv89-WS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,,

Commissioner of Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

December 5, 2011. See Doc. 10. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits be affirmed. The

plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and recommendation. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, this court finds that the magistrate judge's

report and recommendation should be adopted. Because there was substantial

evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, it is

ORDERED:

1. The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to

Case 3:11-cv-00089-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

affirm the Commissioner's denial of the plaintiff's application for benefits.

2. The Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff's application for benefits is

AFFIRMED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00089-WS-CJK Document 11 Filed 01/05/12 Page 2 of 2
297 S.E.2d 211

#### John R. PRICE v. Donald L. BENNETT, Individually, et al.

No. 15529.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Oct. 28, 1982.

Ralph A. Lorenzetti, Jr., West Virginia Legal Services Plan, Inc., Huntington, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM:

John Price sued H-B Contractors, Inc. and Donald Bennett, the sole shareholder of H-B Contractors, Inc., in Randolph County Circuit Court for damages of $7,500 or specific performance of a con*13tract to properly complete work on construction of his home. Corporate and individual defendants jointly answered, denying liability. Price served two sets of interrogatories on H-B Contractors. He never received answers, so he moved the court to compel discovery.

During several informal hearings on the motion to compel, it was determined that this corporate defendant is insolvent, and Mr. Bennett has moved from our State’s jurisdiction. Discussions at these hearings focused on whether Price was entitled to “pierce the corporate veil” of H-B Contractors to reach Mr. Bennett’s assets. Price’s interrogatories sought to determine whether H-B Contractors was undercapitalized, whether there was misuse or personal use of corporate assets, or loose compliance with corporate formalities, justifying piercing the veil. Discovery was denied and, upon defendant’s motion, the court made a September 14, 1981 summary judgment order dismissing the individual defendant, Bennett.

Price appealed to us, asserting the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without giving him an opportunity through discovery to develop facts that would have made summary judgment inappropriate.

We have consistently viewed summary judgments with caution. *Lengyel v. Lint,*167 W.Va. 272, 280 S.E.2d 66, 71 (1981). The facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment will be granted. *Board of Education of Ohio County v. Van Buren and Firestone, Architects, Inc.,*165 W.Va. 140, 267 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1980). Our rule, frequently repeated in our cases, is:

> A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law. Syllabus Point 3, *Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co.,*148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).

*See also Hatfield v. Ellis,*167 W.Va. 213, 279 S.E.2d 414 (1981); *Brown v. Bluefield Municipal Building Commission,*167 W.Va. 318, 280 S.E.2d 101 (1981); *Renner v. Asli,*167 W.Va. 532, 280 S.E.2d 240 (1981); Syllabus Point 1, *Masinter v. WEBCO,*164 W.Va. 241, 262 S.E.2d 433 (1980); *Floyd v. Equitable Life Assurance Society,*164 W.Va. 661, 264 S.E.2d 648 (1980).

The court erred in failing to permit Price to develop facts about whether Bennett should be held liable for H-B Contractor’s breach of contract by piercing its corporate veil. The summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to Randolph County Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JEMAL SHELTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10v334-SPM/WCS

MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR

ASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO MEDIATE

Upon consideration, the parties’ joint Motion for Assignment of Magistrate

Judge to Mediate (doc. 6) is granted. The parties are to contact the Honorable

William C. Sherrill, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, to arrange for a

mediation date convenient to the Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7154

TERRY ALONZA MILBOURNE, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN WELCH, Warden; CORPORAL KELLEM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-2205-WMN)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Alonza Milbourne, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Alonza Milbourne, Sr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint without prejudice. 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. Milbourne v. Welch, No. CA-98-

2205-WMN (D. Md. July 16, 1998). 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
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CLIFFORD SHELTON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv175-SPM/WCS

WALTER A. MCNEIL, 

WARDEN TOMLINSON,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before me upon referral from the Clerk. In an order filed May 5,

2011, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint by June 6, 2011. Plaintiff was

specifically warned that a recommendation would be made that this case be dismissed

if there was a failure to comply with that order. Doc. 6. To date, no response has been

received from the Plaintiff. 

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 and cases cited (11th Cir.), cert.

Case 4:11-cv-00175-SPM-WCS Document 7 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order or to

prosecute this case, this complaint should now be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have a 14 day period after service of this report and

recommendation in which to file objections. This will also afford Plaintiff a final

opportunity to show good cause for this failure to respond. Plaintiff may do so by filing a

motion for reconsideration which will be referred to me by the Clerk.

It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 13, 2011.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being

served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:11cv175-SPM/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00175-SPM-WCS Document 7 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 2
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 72367)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Design and Synthesis of Treatment Agents for Drug Abuse.                    

*Date:*                         December 18, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         10:20 a.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, (301) 435-1439,                         *lf33c@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 11, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-6086  Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOV 16, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11649

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00033-CV-1

LINDSEY NELSON, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DAVID L. FRAZIER,

Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(November 16, 2010)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lindsey Nelson Jr., a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of

appealability to resolve “[w]hether the district court erred in finding that Nelson’s

claim of an unlawful sentence was procedurally defaulted” when the state court

ruled that “the claim was procedurally defaulted or barred by res judicata.” In his

brief, Nelson concedes that his claim of an unlawful sentence is procedurally

defaulted, “so that issue has been abandoned and is no longer before us.” Pugh v.

Smith, 465 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). Nelson instead challenges his

conviction and sentence, but we will not address his arguments because they are

outside the scope of the certificate of appealability. Rhode v. United States, 583

F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). We affirm the denial of Nelson’s petition.

AFFIRMED.

2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cr-00009-MP-GRJ All Defendants

FREDDIE LOY WALKER, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 41, Joint Motion to Cancel Hearing. The parties

have come to an agreement on defendant’s motion to compel the government to produce certain

DNA extracts and samples. Accordingly, the joint motion to cancel hearing is GRANTED and

defendant’s motion to compel, Doc. 36, is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00009-RH-GRJ Document 42 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ramona Mayon v. Benson William Robertson Junior

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00822

- CV

Trial court case number: 462524

Trial court: Probate Court No 4 of Harris County

We have not received the reporter’s record in this matter . The court reporter advised us that appellant has not requested preparation of the record.

The clerk’s record shows that appellant filed a statement of inability and that she is entitled

to have the record filed at no cost. The Clerk of this Court shall note that appellant is indigent for purposes of the record and any filing fees. But appellant must nonetheless request the preparation

of the record.

Appellant should advise this court withi n 10 days whether she has requested the record. If no response is received, the court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c) (stating that, if clerk’s record has

b een filed, appellate court may consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Jennifer V. Caughey

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date:

__ December 13, 2018

____
#### STATE v. ALTMAN

No. 2 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 257.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 14 September 1972.
# C_2009046EN.01002801.xml

| 25.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/28

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

(2009/C 46/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AD/159/09

  to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Estonian (ET) as their main language |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/159/09

EPSO/AD/159/09

to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Estonian (ET) as their main language

| | EPSO/AD/160/09

  to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Slovene (SL) as their main language |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/160/09

EPSO/AD/160/09

to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Slovene (SL) as their main language

| | EPSO/AD/161/09

  to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Czech (CS) as their main language
  and |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/161/09

EPSO/AD/161/09

to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Czech (CS) as their main language

and

| | EPSO/AD/162/09

  to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Latvian (LV) as their main language. |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/162/09

EPSO/AD/162/09

to recruit lawyer-linguists (AD 7) who have Latvian (LV) as their main language.

The competition notices are published in Official Journal C 46 A of 25 February 2009 in English, French and German only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0622

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KEITH CHARLES HARRISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 27, 2024 within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0622