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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 10 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget 

for the United States Government and for greater accountability in 

the enactment of tax legislation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2007 

Mrs. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for 

a balanced budget for the United States Government 

and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax 

legislation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 10 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress 

5 and the President shall agree on an estimate of total re6 ceipts for that fiscal year by enactment into law of a joint 

7 resolution devoted solely to that subject. Total outlays for 

8 that year shall not exceed the level of estimated receipts 

9 set forth in such joint resolution, unless three-fifths of the 

10 total membership of each House of Congress shall provide, 

11 by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays over esti12 mated receipts. 

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Whenever actual outlays exceed actual 

14 receipts for any fiscal year, the Congress shall, in the en15 suing fiscal year, provide by law for the repayment of such 

16 excess. The public debt of the United States shall not be 

17 increased unless three-fifths of the total membership of 

18 each House shall provide by law for such an increase by 

19 a rollcall vote. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President 

21 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the 

22 United States Government for that fiscal year in which 

23 total outlays do not exceed total receipts. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HJ 10 IH 

1 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become 

2 law unless approved by a majority of the total membership 

3 of each House by a rollcall vote. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 5. The provisions of this article are waived 

5 for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in ef6 fect. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts 

8 of the United States except those derived from borrowing. 

9 Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 

10 except for those for repayment of debt principal. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 7. This article shall take effect beginning 

12 with the second fiscal year after its ratification.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23476]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

    Summary: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 
19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 3904 Corporex Park 
Drive Suite 145, Tampa, FL 33619, has been approved to gauge and 
accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs 
purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 
151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory 
analyses and gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d0d1c39ddfd2d1dbc2f3d7dbc09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89b9a88d694999a9089b89c908bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
June 30, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for 
June 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-23476 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 35 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 35

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
      respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

  Mr. Jackson of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
      respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  Every person has the right to work, to free choice of 
employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection 
against unemployment.
    ``Section 2.  Every person, without any discrimination, has the 
right to equal pay for equal work.
    ``Section 3.  Every person who works has the right to just and 
favorable remuneration ensuring for themselves and their family an 
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by 
other means of social protection.
    ``Section 4.  Every person who works has the right to form and join 
trade unions for the protection of their interests.
    ``Section 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce and 
implement this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
583 A.2d 339

#### STEVEN MATHEWS v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 CSAF to Airmen: Sequestration creates tough choicesPublished March 18, 2014
                
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)** -- The Air Force’s highest ranking uniformed Airman released another edition of ‘Airman to Airman’ -- a video series designed to highlight important topics to the force.

In his latest message, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III discusses the impact sequestration has on the Air Force and why certain choices are being made to achieve the required savings.
Sequestration requires the Air Force to cut approximately $12.5 billion dollars each year by law, creating a bill the Air Force must pay by reducing planned spending to achieve the savings. The problem is that the services are limited in where they can find the savings from, Welsh says.
“Out of the Air Force budget, 55 percent of it includes money that goes to pay people ... 5 percent of that 55 percent is installations and facilities. The rest of our Air Force budget ... is all readiness, force structure and modernization,” he says. “Right now, we have not been able to get at that first 55 percent at all to pay any of the sequestration bill. It takes the approval of the White House, and of Congress and of others here in the department.”
So the entire bill will be paid out of force structure, readiness and modernization.
“As I visit you, I get lots of suggestions on other ways we can pay this sequestration bill,” Welsh says. “That’s going to get us at millions of dollars a year, not billions a year of savings. That’s why you see all the examples that we’re talking about now for fleet divestitures and cutting people and force management actions, all those things, that’s the reason.”
Welsh provides an example of the enormity of what $12 billion means to the budget.
“If we stop flying for the next two years ... completely, no flying hours at all in our AF for two years, we can pay one year of the sequestration bill,” he says. “It’s a big problem gang, we’re working hard to fix it, but there’s going to be tough choices that have to be made.”
For more videos in the series, check out the CSAF’s Web page: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/AirForceSeniorLeaders/CSAF.aspx*(Courtesy of Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs)*Welsh 



CSAF 



budget 



sequestration
#### JOSE A. GONZALEZ v. KIBBY KEVELSON.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10‐K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Fixed Income Trust For Goldman Sachs Subordinated Notes, Series 2011-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.










|Date: March 17, 2016 |                                                              
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | /s/ James Whang                                              
|                     | Name:  James Whang                                           
|                     | Title:    Treasurer                                          
|                     |                                                              
|                     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2020 ND 263

NBS Consulting, Inc. dba On Point

M anagement and Whitney Racine, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.
Pe irce Harris aka Pierce Harris, Defendant and Appellant

and All Other Occupants, Defendants

No. 20200203

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gary H. Lee , Judge.

AFFIRMED

.
Per Curiam.

Remington M. Kostenko and Dean A. Frantsvog, Minot, ND

, for plaintiff and appellee ; submitted o n brief

. Pierce Harris, self

- represented, Minot, ND , defendant and appellant ; submitted on brief

.1 NBS Consulting v. Harris No. 20200203

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Pierce Harris appealed from an order and a judgment evicting him from a property in Minot. Harris argues he was wrongfully evicted and improperly served. Harris failed to provide a transcr ipt, which leaves us with little record to review. “If the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error, we decline to review it.” City of West Fargo v. Olson

, 2007 ND 48, ¶ 1, 734 N.W.2d 342 (quoting State v. Stockert , 2004 ND 146, ¶

1 3, 684 N.W.2d 605). Harris failed to provide us the opportunity to review his claims in a meaningful and intelligent manner. Therefore, we summarily affirm the district court under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C. J

. Gerald W. VandeWall e Daniel J. Crother s Lisa Fair McEver s Jerod E. Tuft e
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SYLVESTER ROOTS.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Enlisted EPME course return policy explained

              - Published  Oct. 22, 2013
              -                             By Tech. Sgt. Lesley Waters                                                    
              - Air Force Public Affairs Agency – Operation Location Pentagon

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
The Air Force is giving three options to Airmen who were sent back to their home station while in the process of completing their respective Enlisted Professional Military Education course, as a result of the government shutdown.

For the 900 affected Airmen who were attending Airman Leadership School or Noncommissioned Officer Academy in-residence PME, the Air Force has developed three courses of action for them, which would allow for them to accomplish credit of their perspective PME.  

“In an effort to balance the vital development of our enlisted corps, while considering the turmoil the early return caused each of our members, the personnel community has approved three options for each Airman affected,” said Chief Master Sgt. William Ward, the Enlisted Developmental Education chief.  

Under the first option, Airmen who returned before completing academic requirements can elect to attend the full in-residence course. The Air Force Personnel Center will reschedule Airmen during Fiscal 2014 using normal selection criteria.  

As part of the second option, Airmen will have the choice to enroll in the available EPME Distance Learning course to satisfy all EPME requirements.  Students who choose the DL option must enroll within 30 days of notification by AFPC and will be required to complete the course within 12 months of enrollment.  

The final option is for members who completed at least 50 percent of the required academic days (i.e. 14 for NCO Academy and 12 for ALS) can choose to return and resume their respective EPME course at the point which they departed.  AFPC will make every attempt to schedule these Airmen at the earliest possible date.  

“Regardless of which of the three options selected, Airmen will be given full EPME credit as if they had attended and completed the full in-residence course,” Ward said.   

Air Force Personnel Center will contact each Airman who returned to home station and explain the options available and determine their preference of the three options available to them. 

professional developmentALSNCOAeducation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Diversified Real Estate III Limited Partnership 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000773679
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          33,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         23,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,320)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (783.98)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Sitting Volleyball: Marines, Airmen square off in battle of undefeated team at 2014 Warrior GamesPublished Sept. 30, 2014
                        
                        By U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Cuong Le
                        
                        
                        Defense Media Activity
                **COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                The floor of the stadium shook and the cheers from the audience filled the room with excitement as the Marine Corps and Air Force teams took to the volleyball court on Sept. 29, during the 2014 Warrior Games hosted here at the U.S. Olympic Training Center.
Both teams experienced two wins, no losses the day before, and today, they stand against each other, with the confidence that they would emerge victorious from this match.
Both teams struggled to keep their leads. With each point, the court trembled with the sounds of cheering fans. Air Force pulled ahead, leading half way through the game 19-10, but the Marines were not beaten yet. After one last timeout, the Marines came back and took the first game with a score of 25-23.
“We knew it was going to be a fight going into the match and that was exactly what we got,” said Kari Miller, the assistant coach of the Air Force volleyball team.
The second match pushed both teams to their breaking points with a constant change of one-point leads. It wasn’t until the last five points that the Marines gave everything they had and winning the match 25-20.
“They (the Air Force team) play with intention,” said Brent Petersen, coach of the Marine Corps volleyball team. “They do not just slap the ball around. They’re a tough team to beat, and it came down to who made less mistakes. The Marines have such a confidence that it just overwhelms the other team. I thought they were a great team before and I thought they were a great team after.”
According to Petersen, there were no losers during this game, because both teams demonstrated that their injuries do not hinder them, in fact, it only pushes them to try harder than ever before.
“It’s about getting all of the guys out here and showing them that they can still be great at something and that their injuries do not stop them from being the best,” Millersaid.
After the game both teams showed amazing sportsmanship by shaking hands, complementing each other and admiring each other’s skills on the court.
“They were an amazing team -- they had great ball control and good back roll player,” said Zachary Blair, a Marine Corps volleyball team player. “We are definitely going to meet them again in the gold medal match.”Colorado Springs 



Colorado 



athletics 



sports 



warrior care 



recovery 



wingmen 



paralympic 



volleyball 



DMA 



Warrior Games Related Links
        Warrior Games coverage 2014
#### EARL BONHOTEL *v.*NANCY BONHOTEL

(AC 23522)

Foti, Schaller and West, Js.

Argued May 7

officially released June 10, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.