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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1662 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1662

   To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 
establish and maintain a permanent emergency lending program to provide 
    member banks and other depository institutions with short-term 
                  liquidity against long-term assets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to 
establish and maintain a permanent emergency lending program to provide 
    member banks and other depository institutions with short-term 
                  liquidity against long-term assets.

    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 ``Emergency Liquidity Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM PERMANENT EMERGENCY LENDING PROGRAM.

    The Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.) is amended by 
inserting after section 10B the following:

``SEC. 10C. PERMANENT EMERGENCY LENDING PROGRAM.

    ``The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall 
establish and maintain a permanent emergency lending program under 
which a Federal reserve bank may provide short-term liquidity to member 
banks or other depository institutions pledging any collateral eligible 
for purchase by the Federal reserve banks in open market operations.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,306,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  323,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,639,527
<PP&E>                                       2,785,594
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,379,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,315,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          644,933
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                        16,294
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,653,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,315,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,196,037
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  917,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,503,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (40,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,149,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,149,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,980,632)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Exhibit 32.2]

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
IV,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2002  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of
2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements  of
Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934;
and
          (2)  The  information contained in  the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                    /s/ William Colucci
                                    -----------------------------
                                    William Colucci, Treasurer
                                    BF Acquisition Group IV, Inc.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-78,769-03
IN RE RANDYHENDERSON, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 03-F -0146-202 IN THE 202 DISTRICT COURT N D F ROM BOWIE COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has f

iled a motion for leave to file an application for a wr it of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed a motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc on or about October 20, 2014, and the trial court has not taken action on the motion. Relator prese nted his claim to the Six th Court of Appea ls, but was denied relief
. In re Randy Hende rson , No. 06-15-00034- CR (Tex. App.—Te x ar k ana Mar. 10, 2015) (not desig nated for publ ication). A trial court ha s a ministerial duty to rule “upon a mot ion that is proper ly and timely prese nted to it for a
ru l i n g. ” St ate ex rel. Y

oung v. Sixth Judicial Dis t. , 236 S.W .3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Relator has a lleg ed fa cts which, if true , could entitle him to mandamus relief
.2

I n t h es e circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the J udg e of the 202 n d District Court of Bow ie County , shall file a response addre ssing whether Relator has proper ly filed
a motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc in that court. I f relator has filed such a motion, the responde nt shall addre ss whether the m otion has been ruled upon and, if the m otion has not been ruled upon, the responde nt shall discuss the rationale for not taking action on the motion. Respondent’s answe r shall be submitt ed within 30 da y s of the date of this order. This a pplication for leave to f

ile a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until R espondent ha s submitt ed his response
. Filed: August 26, 2015 Do not publish
Updating the Fume Hood 

Monitor System

Disha Das

Thomas S. Wootton High School
What the System Does

 Alert health physics staff of radiation levels in NCNR fume hoods

 Display data and alarms to website for health physics to 

respond

Overview

Program Website

Database
Windows Service Benefits

 Ideal for long 

running programs in 

the background

 Provides restart 

options on shutdown

 Signed
Object Oriented Benefits

 Organization 

 Readability
Design

Ratemeter 

receives data

Convert to Data 

Point and save to 

each Detector

Detector updates 

daily min, max, 

average

Ratemeter 

saves detectors

Detector 

calculates average 

and checks alarm

Updates current 

values and history 

table
Testing
Testing

Detector Counts

1 1

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 0

11 0

12 0

• Ran for 1 minute

• Expected 100 cpm

• Received 97 cpm
MS-SQL database

 Large amounts of data

 Multiple connections
Website

 Displays count and alarm information from database

 Shows map layout of detectors (mimic screen), 

ratemeter status, and detector trend graphs

 Microsoft Authentication

Website
Future

 Multithreaded

Minimize data loss

 Add website functionality
Conclusions

 Program is more reliable

 Hood monitoring data is part of centralized database

 Hood webpages added to new website
Acknowledgements

 Dagistan Sahin & Tim Barvitskie

 Julie Borchers & Yamali Hernandez

 Scott Arneson

 Paul Brand

 SHIP

 NCNR

 Center for High Resolution Neutron Scattering (CHRNS)
#### Edward ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GARBAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE; Republic Services, Incorporated; Dave Bavacqua; Frank Rocco; Elijah Shaw; Levine Properties, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1189.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 6, 2001.

*239Edward Anderson, pro se. Patricia Tighe Bartis, Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, Raleigh, NC; Keith Michael Weddington, Parker, Poe, Adams *&*Bernstein, L.L.P., John Robert Buric, James, McElroy *&*Diehl, P.A., Charlotte, NC, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Edward Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his various state law claims and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his claim under his Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e~17 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). 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. *See Anderson v. Garbage Disposal Serv.,*No. CA-00-294MU (W.D.N .C. Jan. 5, 2001). 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.*
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-59-2014]

                    On August 12, 2014, the Onondaga County Office of Economic Development, grantee of FTZ 90, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade                           ( print page 74684)                        Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of PPC Broadband, Inc., within Subzone 90C, in Dewitt, New York.                

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400) including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 51138, August 27, 2014). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: December 10, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-29383 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Dr. Kuljeet Kaur

Opus Fund services

181 Sand Creek Rd, Suite F

Brentwood CA 95212

Subject: RFI NIST Privacy Framework

Dear Privacy Framework Team

I am the IT Security Officer at Opus Fund Services and have my PhD in IT Security. Opus is founded in 2006, 

an award winning, independently owned and operated full service global fund administrator.

I have successfully implemented the NIST cyber security framework and directly work on GDPR/PIPA and 

ISO 27001. Our company has worldwide presence, so we must deal with many regulatory requirements 

inside and outside of the U.S like, but not limited to, GDPR, PIPA, PIPEDA etc. 

NIST CSF is very successful and easy when it comes to implementation and helped us to conform to many 

cyber security regulatory requirements. Privacy framework is an excellent initiative, much needed in the 

industry. Getting more guidance on the compliance requirements and privacy outcome for personally 

identifiable information (PII) would be well appreciated by public and private industry.

My main concern is that NIST should consider synchronization between NIST CSF and any upcoming 

privacy framework. Such as similar structure of functions, categories, sub-categories and informative 

references.

The industry is well versed with CSF structure of implementation and informative references provides 

scope to consider different frameworks.

Data breaches and hacking attempts have forced everyone to comply to cyber security requirements, so 

currently the Industry needs a simplified privacy framework for NIST CSF. 

Thanks

Date: December 17, 2018
## NO. 12

- 1 3

- 00 1 59

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JONES PAINT & BODY S HOP AND § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

DAVID N. JONES,

APPELLANT

S

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

LARRY PAREN T

, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellants ’ docketing statement was due to have been filed at the

time the appeal was perfected, i.e., May 10, 2013. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On May 16, 2013,

this Court notified Appellant s that they should file a docketing statement within ten days if they

had not already d one so. On the same date, this Court sent Appellant s a second notice requesting

that they remit the filing fee for the appeal.

Appellant s did not file the docketing statement or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, on

May 31, 2013, this Court issued anothe r notice advising Appellant s that the docketing statement

was past due. The notice also advised Appellant s that the filing fee was due to have been paid on

or before May 28, 2013, but had not been received. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 (requiring payment of

fil ing fee at time an item is presented for filing). The notice further provided that unless the

docketing statement was filed and the filing fee paid on or before June 10, 2013, the appeal

would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing

statement and paying the filing fee has expired, and Appellant s have not complied with the2

Court’s request. Because Appellant s have failed, after notice, to comply with Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure 5 and 32.1, the appea l is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered June 19 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXA S

JUDGMENT

JUNE 19 , 2013

NO. 12

- 13

- 00159

- CV

JONES PAINT & BODY SHOP AND DAVID N. JONES

, Appellant s

V.

LARRY PARENT

, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th Judicial Distr ict Court

of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 12

- 2816

- B )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dism issed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Grif fith, J. , and Hoyle , J.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29342]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1957]


Restricted Approval for Production Authority, Foreign-Trade Zone 
83, Toray Carbon Fibers America, Inc. (Carbon Fiber); Decatur, AL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    WHEREAS, the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, grantee 
of FTZ 83, has requested authority on behalf of Toray Carbon Fibers 
America, Inc. (Toray), to use polyacrylonitrile (PAN) fiber and other 
inputs to produce carbon fiber and PAN fiber under FTZ procedures at 
Toray's facility in Decatur, Alabama (B-58-2013, docketed 05-30-2013);
    WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (78 FR 35603-35604, 6/13/2013; and 79 FR 15725, 3/21/
2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that the proposal would 
be in the public interest, if subject to the restriction listed below;
    NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby orders:
    The application for production authority under zone procedures at 
the Toray facility in Decatur, Alabama, as described in the application 
and Federal Register notice, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject 
to a restriction that all foreign-status PAN fiber admitted for Toray's 
production activity must be re-exported (entry for U.S. consumption is 
not authorized).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6 day of December 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29342 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### John W. Hazelrigg *v.*F. Gray.

Specific Performance — Bond for Conveyance — Amount of Land.

Where a vendor of land gives a bond for the conveyance of two hundred acres, the court will not compel the purchaser to accept a deed for one hundred fifty acres or for two' hundred acres if there are only one hundred fifty acres within the boundary.

Vendor and Purchaser — Interest on Purchase Money.

Where a vendor of land is unable to- make title to the land,, he should be required to pay interest on the money received on the purchase price from the date of the institution of the suit, if demand for title was not made prior to the institution of suit.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 27, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The bond executed by the appellant contained a covenant to convey to the appellee two hundred acres of land. The exhibits filed together with other evidences of title show that the tract sold the ap-pellee contains only one hundred’and fifty acres and in such a case the contract being executory, the chancellor will not compel the purchaser to accept a deed for such a reduced quantity, or to accept a deed for two hundred acres, when there is really only one hundred and fifty acres embraced within the boundary. There is no allegation of fraud in the petition and certainly no evidence of it, and the question arises as to the liability of the appellant for interest on the money. A refunding deed implied that the money will be paid without interest where there is nothing else upon the face of the deed or bond indicating that interest shall be paid, but in this case it is not only stipulated that the appellant is to make a refunding deed, but the amount he is to refund is expressly stated, namely, $600. No demand is shown to have been made of the appellant for title prior to the institution of this action, nor is it shown that there ever was a demand of possession.

The appellant, however, being unable to make title, should have been required to pay interest from the institution of the suit. The scienter as to the want of title and number of acres is not alleged or proven, and by the terms of the contract the appellant was only to *48refund the money in the event he failed to make title. If proceedings had been instituted and the appellant had failed to procure title all that could have been recovered back would have been the purchase money without interest. Where he had no title and there had been a demand made of the money, interest would run doubtless from the demand, but the only evidence in this case as to the time any demand was made is to be found on the filing of the suit to recover the money back.

*Buckner, Hazelrigg, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*

Tire judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment against appellant for six hundred dollars, with interest from the institution of the suit, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4608 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4608

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2004

                                Received

                           September 7, 2004

     Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in 
 Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs 
                          Outpatient Clinic''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 
              PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in 
Peoria, Illinois, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be 
known and designated as the ``Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic''. Any reference to such outpatient clinic in any 
law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 
States shall be considered to be a reference to the Bob Michel 
Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BOBBY SMITH, JR., #207658, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0588-CG-C 

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL, et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT

 It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative. 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00588-CG-C Document 9 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 1