alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 509 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 232
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 509

                          [Report No. 105-643]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4250) to provide new 
             patient protections under group health plans.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                July 24 (legislative day, July 23), 1998

     Mr. Goss, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4250) to provide new 
             patient protections under group health plans.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4250) to provide new 
patient protections under group health plans. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The amendments printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by 
Representative Hastert of Illinois and a Member opposed to the bill; 
(2) the further amendment printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of 
the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 232

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 509

                          [Report No. 105-643]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4250) to provide new 
             patient protections under group health plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 24 (legislative day, July 23), 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

D’ANDRE BRADLEY; DAVID D. 

MOORE; TARA D. MOORE; BRETT O. 

SHELTON; ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE 

ASSOCIATION; and, SECOND 

AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

BRENDAN F. KELLY, in his official 

capacity as Direct of the Illinois State 

Police; and JESSICA TRAME, in her 

official capacity as Bureau Chief of the 

Illinois State Police Firearms Services 

Bureau,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 20-cv-4270

 Judge Ronald A. Guzman

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Attorneys of Record

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 23, 2020, I caused to be filed with the Clerk 

of the Unit States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Sixth Amended General 

Order 20-0012 and Judge Guzman’s current standing order this motion is not noticed for 

presentment.

 

/s/ Mary A. Johnston

MARY A. JOHNSTON

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

General Law Bureau – Civil Rights Unit

100 W. Randolph St., 13th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-3739

(312) 814-4425 (FAX)

mjohnston@atg.state.il.us

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17-1 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:76
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing notice and referenced 

pleadings was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system on the 23rd day of 

September, 2020.

/s/ Mary A. Johnston

MARY A. JOHNSTON

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 17-1 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:77
Entropy and 

Experimental Design

BY WILLIAM GOLDING

MENTOR PAUL KIENZLE
Motivation

•Measurement is expensive 

and time consuming •We want to optimize the 

amount of information from 

an experiment against the 

cost of performing the 

experiment

HIV 

GAG 

protein 

data 

from 

Magik
Information—Shannon Entropy

25% 25%

25% 25%

50%

50%

Experiment

2 (X) = - ( )log ( ) i i

i X

H px px

∈

∑

2 H p (X)= log n if is a uniform distribution

2 bits

1 bit

Experiment

75%

12.5

%

12.5

%

2 bits

1.06 bits

∆ =− H 1 bit ∆ =− H 0.94 bits

25% 25%

25% 25%
Information—Differential Entropy

2.05 bits 1.05 bits

Experiment

2 (X)= ( )log ( ) X h p x p x dx ∫

∆ = h(X) -1 bit
Bumps Example

•Create a model for experiment and simulate data
Bumps Example

•Fit the data and calculate the entropy on the posterior distributions
Reflectivity and SANS Model

Reflectivity Small Angle Neutron Scattering (SANS)
Reflectivity and SANS Entropy
Reflectivity with Nuisance Parameters

•Entropy decreases linearly with number of contrasts
Future Work

•Improve entropy calculations for large numbers of parameters

•Investigate why the reflectivity model causes entropy to decrease linearly 

as the number of contrasts grows

•Investigate influence of number of parameters on entropy calculations

•Apply entropy to more interesting reflectivity problems and other 

experiment types
Acknowledgments

•Paul Kienzle

•Julie Borchers

•NIST and NCNR

•NSF and CHRNS
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-1

Open Business Cell UP

A brief for World’s Best Technology Sh

"Businesses doing business 

with the Department of Defense.

1500-1600 17 March 2010
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-2

What does OBC do?

• Active outsourcing agent of Do

companies that have not done bwith DoD before

• Use of Defense Solutions.gov a

Transactions Agreements simprelationships with “non-traditiospeed up awards

• Reduce time to test prototype s

DoD need
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-3

DefenseSolutions.go

Process Flow

Submit 

Idea

Technical 

Review 

Enter award 

negotiations Award 

Ideas Retai

for Referenc

Reapprais

You are 

notified

Not 

selected

If more information needed, 

we will ask you for it 

Idea(s) 

selection
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-4

Open Business Cell

• Pilot program launched 6 Feb 09 seeking 

developmental prototypes

• DefenseSolutions.gov

– Public portal to submit ideas on listed topics

• Submission process is short & free form

– What does your idea do?– Why technically will this work?– How will we test it?

• Battlefield forensics was pilot topic

– Needed capabilities: drugs/expl test kit; 

digital image recognition; auto latent print machine and Open topic

• Results

– 96 ideas received; 24 proposals requested– Three proposals selected for funding in 

FY09.

• Additional topics now sought
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-5

Battlefield Forensics 

Proposals Funded

Multi-Test Kit for Explosives, Drugs, and Heavy Metals/GunshoA rugged field test kit for suspicious substances

• Georgia Tech Research Institute ($500K @18 Months, Awarded 30 

Digital Image Device Linkage at Warfighter LevelA method to determine the origin of digital cell phone photos

• AAVET Inc. ($400K @ 24 months, Awarded 27 Jan 2010)

Automated Process for Latent Fingerprint Development on DocA high speed document handler that develops and captures latent f

• Lockheed Martin ($1,750K@15 months, Awarded 26 Jan 2010) 

Handheld Sensitive Site Exploration Documentation Device; A combination tool that speeds up the collection/custody of evidenc

• Five proposals are under evaluation for funding in FY-10.
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-6

Summary

• OBC works – Three funded projects underw

months of selection

• Many lessons learned

– Good topics are hard to find– Program support is crucial– Contracting must be facile to suit the respondents

– Marketing methods will change

• Ready to proceed

– Expanding into new topics– Adopting new method this year to expand solution cap
OBC Update for WBT

03/17/10 Page-7

David A. EdwardsContractor, Strategic Analysis Inc.david.a.edwards.ctr@osd.mildedwards@sainc.com(703) 588-2413 (O)(571) 334-7821 (cell)1401 Wilson Blvd, Room 820Arlington, VA 22209

Gary J. SnydeContractor, Stgary.snyder.cgsnyder@sain(703) 696-8534 (703) 915-4167 1401 Wilson BArlington, VA 

Open Business Cell 

Technology Brokers
neration 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 

ing 

Dual Manufacturing: 

Manufacturing Both 

Real and Virtual Products 

Dr. Michael Grieves 
neration 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 

ing 

PLM Model 

Product Engineering 

Manufacturing Engineering 

Manufacturing 

Operations 

People 

Information 

Platform 

Concept 

Engineering 

Processes 

& 

Practices 

Technolo 

gy 

Requirements Decommissioning 

Prototype 
Real Space Virtual Space 

VS1 VS2 

neration 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 

ing 

Information Mirroring: 

hysical and Virtual Products 

VS n 

Data 

Information 

Process 
Real Space Virtual Space 

VS1 VS2 

neration 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 

ing 

Create 

VS n 

Data 

Information 

Process 
Real Space Virtual Space 

VS1 VS2 

neration 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 

ing 

Build 

VS n 

Data 

Information 

Process 
Real Space Virtual Space 

neration 

ing 

Components of PSM:

Creating As-Builts

Data 

Information 

Process 

sure 

sical 

ata 

Collect and 

Organize Data 

Create 

As-Builts 

Present AsBuilts 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 
neration 

ing 

Dual Product/PSM Value 

nstantaneous / Simultaneous supply 

chain (net) availability BoP validation (Eng/Mfg) Longitudinal manufacturing validation Sustainment efficiencies Product liability mitigation 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC 
neration 

ing 

Dr. Michael Grieves Tel: (248)705-5787 Email: mgrieves@ameritech.net 

ichael W. Grieves, LLC
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41102 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SAUL ZAMARRIPA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-772-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Saul ZamarripaRodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00110-CV

KEISHA DUKE, Appellants

V.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB DBA CHRISTIANA 

TRUST AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE 

RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES 

TRUST V, Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2018-008057-1)

December 12, 2019

Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellant Keisha Duke shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
TKP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0137

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SHELBY BRYAN RAGNER, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 10-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including June 30, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 10 2022

06/10/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0137
August 2004 

MAVs and USDA Products 

By Kathy Dresser 

Recently NIST received several questions about when to apply MAVs and when to apply 

USDA lower limits to meat and poultry products packaged at USDA plants. The answer 

is fairly straight-forward: 

• if the package bears a USDA seal, inspectors must apply the USDA lower 

limits (Table 2-9 in Handbook 133); 

• if the package does not bear a USDA seal, inspectors should apply the 

regular MAVs (Tables 2-5 and 2-6 in Handbook 133). 

This applies not only to items found in the meat case, but also to products like soups and 

broths that contain meat and poultry. 

USDA seals may vary slightly from packer to packer. Below are a few examples of the 

types of seals that are commonly used: 

38

U.S.

BY

U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

P- 42

U.S.

INSPECTED

AND PASSED BY

DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

EST. 38

Most of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that more and more often meat and 

poultry products are being prepackaged at central packing establishments, many of which 

are USDA plants. However, some of these meat and poultry products are not weighed at 
the point-of-pack and may not receive a USDA seal. Regardless of where the product is 

ultimately weighed and labeled, if it bears a USDA seal, the USDA lower limits apply; if 

there is no seal, the MAVs apply. 

For further information contact Kathy Dresser at 301-975-3289, or by email at 

kathryn.dresser@nist.gov.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<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>                                          18,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,670)
<INVENTORY>                                     14,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,899
<PP&E>                                         893,230
<DEPRECIATION>                               (301,347)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,383,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,924
<BONDS>                                      1,483,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,986
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,139,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,383,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,626
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
H. R. 397

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION PROJECT.

Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply

to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered

11214, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for

the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the

good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that

section and the Commission’s procedures under that section—

(1) reinstate the license for the construction of the project

as of the effective date of the surrender of the license; and

(2) extend the time period during which the licensee is

required to commence the construction of the project for 3

consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years

after the date of issuance of the license.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Mechanical Technology Incorporated;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual 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;

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 15(d)-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

1. 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
2. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

1. 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; and

1. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth 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
2. 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):
3. 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 financial information; and
4. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

May 2, 2005			/S/ CYNTHIA A. SCHEUER						Cynthia A. Scheuer

Chief Financial Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3937

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish macroeconomic 

congressional budgets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2004

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish 

macroeconomic congressional budgets.

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 ‘‘Macroeconomic Budg5 eting Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MACROECONOMIC CONGRES7 SIONAL BUDGETS. 

8 (a) MACROECONOMIC CATEGORIES.—Section 301(a) 

9 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
2

•HR 3937 IH 

1 632(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and by re2 designating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) 

3 through (6), respectively. 

4 (b) ADDITIONAL MATTERS.—Section 301(b) of the 

5 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(b)) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (8), 

7 by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’ at the end 

8 of paragraph (9), and by adding at the end the following 

9 new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(10) set forth appropriate levels for each fiscal 

11 year covered by such concurrent resolution for new 

12 budget authority and outlays for each major func13 tional category established by the Committees on the 

14 Budget (after consultation with each other), based 

15 on allocations of the total levels set forth pursuant 

16 to subsection (a)(1).’’.

Æ