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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4202 

To require an annual budget estimate for the initiatives of the National 

Institutes of Health pursuant to reports and recommendations made 

under the National Alzheimer’s Project Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

MORAN, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require an annual budget estimate for the initiatives 

of the National Institutes of Health pursuant to reports 

and recommendations made under the National Alzheimer’s Project Act. 

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 ‘‘Alzheimer’s Account5 ability and Investment Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4202 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROJECT. 

2 Section 2 of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (42 

3 U.S.C. 11225) is amended— 

4 (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub5 section (i); and 

6 (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(h) PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BUDGET.—For fis9 cal year 2024 and each subsequent fiscal year, the Direc10 tor of the National Institutes of Health shall prepare and 

11 submit, directly to the President for review and trans12 mittal to Congress, an annual budget estimate for the ini13 tiatives of the National Institutes of Health pursuant to 

14 the reports and recommendations made under this Act, 

15 including an estimate of the number and type of personnel 

16 needs for the National Institutes of Health.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,405
<PP&E>                                          25,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,426)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,072
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        214
<COMMON>                                         1,684
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,993
<SALES>                                          7,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,806
<CGS>                                            6,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,993)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,993)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **2274**

JERRY A. HURST ,
P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND; CHIEF WEBSTER; CAPTAIN WILEY; OFFICER SMULLEN, in their individual and official capacities; S TATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; MARSHALL MAJOR; MARTY A. HARBIN; JOHN D. MCGAVIN; MAXWELL HUDDLESTON WIEGARD; GUY M. HARBERT, III; DOES 1

- 50, in their individual and official capacities , Defendant s – Appell ees .
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1 : 1 0

- c v - 0 2516

- WDQ )

Submitted : May 2 6 , 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING , SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by unpublished p er curiam opinion

.

Jerry A. Hurst , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jerry A. Hurst appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We
have revi ewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hurst v. City of Salisbury, M d

. , No. 1:10

- cv - 02516

- WDQ
(D. Md. Oct. 18, 2010) . 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
#### FRANCES JOHNSON, Administratrix of Maurice Johnson, Deceased, v. THE HARRIET MILLS, Inc.

(Filed 26 September, 1928.)

Appeal and Error — Review of Interlocutory Orders — Premature Appeals —Dismissal.

An appeal from an order for the examination of the agents of the defendant corporation under C. S., 900, in order to obtain information upon which to base the complaint, is premature and will be dismissed.

Appeal from an order made by *Midyette, J.,*at Chambers. From VaNce.

Plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant, and after summons was served, filed an affidavit setting out a cause of action against the defendant for wrongful death and requesting the court to issue an order for the examination of certain alleged agents and employees of the defendant. The clerk of the Superior Court upon the affidavit issued an order directing the parties named in the affidavit to appear and be examined at the instance of the plaintiff. The defendant filed certain exceptions to the order of the clerk to the effect that the information sought by the plaintiff was not material and that the information desired by plaintiff was already available. From the order of the clerk the defendant appealed to the judge, who affirmed the order of the clerk, and found that the suit was regularly instituted, and that the proceeding for examination of agents and employees of defendant was sought in good faith and for the legitimate purpose of obtaining information from which to file the complaint. The judge further found *94“that the plaintiff has filed a duly verified affidavit setting forth sufficient facts to entitle her to examine the defendant for the purpose of obtaining information from which to file her complaint.” Thereupon an order was made by the judge directing the parties named in the affidavit to appear and be examined before the clerk of the Superior Court. From this order the defendant appealed.

*M. C. Pearce and Thomas W. Ruffin for plaintiff.*

*Perry & Kittrell and J. P. & J. H. Zollicoffer for defendant.*

Per Oubiam.

C. S., 900, provides that “where a corporation is a party to the action, this examination may be made of any of its officers or agents.” When no pleadings have been filed the plaintiff by proper and sufficient affidavit may apply to the court for an order of examination. *Bailey v. Matthews,*156 N. C., 78, 72 S. E., 92; *Fields v. Coleman, 1*60 N. C., 11, 75 S. E., 1005; *Chesson v. Bank,*190 N. C., 187, 129 S. E., 403. And when a proper order for such examination has been duly made, an appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court is premature and will be dismissed. *Ward v. Martin,*175 N. C., 287, 95 S. E., 621; *Monroe v. Holder,*182 N. C., 79, 108 S. E., 359; *Abbitt v. Gregory, ante,*9.

Appeal dismissed.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3036530-JUN-201108:01 AM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2793

Faurecia US Holdings:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

552

KA 10-01380

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOE SEYMOUR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered October 6, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [4]), defendant contends that his agreed upon sentence is illegal and that he must therefore be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea. We agree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, County Court sentenced defendant as a second violent felony offender to a determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years to be followed by a period of five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). As the People correctly concede, that sentence is illegal because the minimum period of PRS that could be imposed on defendant, as a second violent felony offender, is 10 years ( see Penal Law § 70.45 [2-a] [i]). Thus, under the circumstances presented here, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea or be resentenced to a legal period of PRS ( see People v Lee , 64 AD3d 1236, 1237; see also People v Griffin , 72 AD3d 1496, 1497; People v Motley [appeal No. 3], 56 AD3d 1158, 1159).

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         24
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    43
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      43
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               41
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        43
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (59)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (59)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (59)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (59.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (59.00)
        

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3477

Voith Hydro, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5005]



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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NAFTA--00302; Washington Public Power Supply Systems Nuclear 
Project; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA 
Transitional Adjustment Assistance

NAFTA--00302 WPN-2 Richland, Washington
NAFTA--00302A WPN-1 Richland, Washington
NAFTA--00302B WPN-3 Satsop, Washington
    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), the Department 
of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment 
Assistance on January 13, 1995, applicable to all workers of the 
Washington Public Power System (WPN-2) in Richland, Washington. The 
notice will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the company and the workers the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New 
findings show that the worker group for the Washington Public Power 
Supply System Nuclear Project, WPN-2 plant, in Richland, Washington 
should include workers at the WPN-1 in Richland as well as the WPN-3 
plant in Satsop, Washington. The workers are rotated among the three 
plants.
    The investigation revealed that sales declined and significant 
worker separations occurred at all three plants. A Departmental survey 
of Washington Public Power's customers showed that the respondents 
decreased their purchases for Washington Public Power and increased 
their imports of electrical energy from Canada.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers who were adversely affected by increased imports. Accordingly, 
the Department is amending the certification to include Washington 
Public Power's plants in Satsop, Washington and Richland, Washington.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA--00302 is hereby issued as 
follows:

``All workers of the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear 
Project at the WPN-2 plant in Richland Washington; WPN-1 plant in 
Richland, Washington and the WPN-3 plant in Satsop, Washington who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
December 8, 1993 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 
250 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of February 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5005 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2441

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice published at 

83 FR 67463 (‘the exclusion notice’) and posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/2018-28277.pdf.

The scope of your exclusion is governed by the scope of the formal HTSUS product 

description in the Annex to the exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in 

any particular request for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted 

by excluding from the additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description 

contained in the Annex to the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4150 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4150

 To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service 
                    weapons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2022

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cotton, Ms. Cortez Masto, and 
  Mr. Tillis) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service 
                    weapons, 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 ``Federal Law Enforcement Service 
Weapon Purchase Act''.

SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED HANDGUNS BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICERS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18, 
        United States Code;
            (2) the term ``handgun'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
            (3) the term ``retired handgun'' means any handgun that has 
        been declared surplus by the applicable agency.
    (b) Authorization.--A Federal law enforcement officer may purchase 
a retired handgun from the Federal agency that issued the handgun to 
such officer.
    (c) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may purchase a 
retired handgun under subsection (b) if--
            (1) the purchase is made during the 6-month period 
        beginning on the date the handgun was so retired; and
            (2) the officer is not prohibited from possessing or 
        receiving the handgun under the laws of the United States or 
        the laws of the State, territory, or possession of the United 
        States in which the officer resides.
    (d) Cost.--A handgun purchased under this section shall be sold at 
the fair market value for such handgun taking into account the age and 
condition of the handgun.
    (e) Policy Guidance.--The Administrator of General Services shall 
develop policies to facilitate the sale and disposition of eligible 
handguns under this section consistent with section 922 of title 18, 
United States Code.
                                 <all>
```