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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3308 

To suspend certain activities in the outer Continental Shelf until the date 

on which the joint investigation into the Deepwater Horizon incident 

in the Gulf of Mexico has been completed, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2010 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. REED, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To suspend certain activities in the outer Continental Shelf 

until the date on which the joint investigation into the 

Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico has 

been completed, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEEPWATER HORIZON INCIDENT INVESTIGA4 TION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Until the date described in sub6 section (b), the Secretary of the Interior shall suspend— 

7 (1) all activities relating to the development of 

8 a new or revised 5-year plan for the outer ContiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:04 May 06, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3308.IS S3308

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3308 IS

1 nental Shelf under section 18 of the Outer Conti2 nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344); 

3 (2) any new exploration, development, and pro4 duction activities in the outer Continental Shelf, in5 cluding the conduct of seismic and other geological 

6 and geophysical surveys; and 

7 (3) any exploration or development activities 

8 that have commenced before the date of enactment 

9 of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior cer10 tifies that the activities pose no significant risk of 

11 accident. 

12 (b) DATE.—The date referred to in subsection (a) is 

13 the date on which— 

14 (1) the joint investigation conducted by the Sec15 retary of the Interior and the Secretary of Home16 land Security with respect to the Deepwater Horizon 

17 incident in the Gulf of Mexico has been completed 

18 in accordance with the joint statement of principles 

19 and convening order entitled ‘‘Joint Department of 

20 the Interior and Department of Homeland Security 

21 Statement of Principles and Convening Order Re22 garding Investigation into the Marine Casualty, Ex23 plosion, Fire, Pollution, and Sinking of Mobile Off24 shore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon, With Loss 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3308 IS

1 of Life in the Gulf of Mexico 21–22 April 2010’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) a final report identifying methods to pre4 vent future incidents in the outer Continental Shelf 

5 has been completed in accordance with the joint 

6 statement described in paragraph (1). 

7 (c) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act affects production 

8 activities that have commenced before the date of enact9 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
96-2753.

#### State ex rel. Smith v. Court of Appeals, Eleventh App. Dist.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3239 

To repeal unwarranted provisions from the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act and to more efficiently use taxpayer dollars in health care spending. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2010 

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal unwarranted provisions from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and to more efficiently 

use taxpayer dollars in health care spending. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEALS. 

4 (a) REPEAL OF PROVISION THAT PROVIDES FOR AN

5 INCREASE IN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT PRIMARILY

6 FOR HOSPITALS IN CONNECTICUT AND MICHIGAN.—Sec7 tion 3137(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

8 Care Act (Public Law 111–148), as amended by section 

9 10317 of such Act, is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3239 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘FISCAL YEAR 2010’’ and 

2 all that follows through ‘‘for purposes of imple3 mentation of the amendment’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘FISCAL YEAR 2010.—For purposes of imple5 mentation of the amendment’’; and 

6 (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

7 (2) by striking paragraph (3). 

8 (b) REPEAL OF THE PROVISION GRANTING MEDI9 CARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVI10 RONMENTAL HAZARDS IN LIBBY, MONTANA.—Section 

11 10323 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

12 (Public Law 111–148) Act (and the amendments made 

13 by such section) is repealed. 

14 (c) REPEAL OF PROVISION THAT PROVIDES FOR AN

15 INCREASE IN MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR FRON16 TIER STATES.—Section 10324 of the Patient Protection 

17 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) (and the 

18 amendments made by such section) is repealed. 

19 (d) REPEAL OF HOSPITAL FINDING PROVISIONS.— 

20 Section 10502 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

21 Care Act (Public Law 111–148) is repealed. 

22 (e) REDUCTION OF SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP 

23 FOR STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.— 

24 Section 1905(aa)(1) of the Social Security Act, as added 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3239 IS

1 by section 2006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

2 Care Act (Public Law 111–148), is amended— 

3 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘50 per4 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘25 percent’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘25 per6 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘12.5 percent’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 287

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the full 
  deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic 
             production activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 2009

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the full 
  deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic 
             production activities, 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. ACCELERATION OF PHASEIN OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 199 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of deduction) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--There shall be allowed as a 
deduction an amount equal to 9 percent of the lesser of--
            ``(1) the qualified production activities income of the 
        taxpayer for the taxable year, or
            ``(2) taxable income (determined without regard to this 
        section) for the taxable year.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 199(d) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(B)'' and inserting 
``subsection (a)(2)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FULL DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION 
              FOR OIL RELATED PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 401 of the Energy Improvement and 
Extension Act of 2008 is repealed.
    (b) Effective Date; Administration of Code.--
            (1) Effective date.--The repeal made by this section shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
            (2) Administration of code.--The Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986 shall be applied and administered as if section 401 of the 
        Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, and the 
        amendments made by such section, had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. KE NN E T H P OO N MAH , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50568 D. C. No . 3 : 0 9 - c r - 0 1 5 6 4 - BE N ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e nne th P oon M a h appe a l s f r om the 60- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rm a n u f a c tu r in g m a r iju a n aa n da id in g a n dab e ttin g , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1) and 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. 

# FI LED JU N 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50568 2 M ah cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d et erm i ni ng thathe w as i ne l i gi bl e f

ors a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

unde rU . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2, be c aus e i tappl i e d a c le a r lyim p r o b ab le b u r d e n o f p r o o f . W e a g r e e . Se e U

ni te d State s v . Fe rr

y m an , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (th e b u rd en i s o n th e d efen d an tt o p ro v e b y a prepon derance of the evi dence thathe qu al i fi es for s af ety val ve re l i ef

). T he ca se i s r em anded for the di stri ctcourtt o d et erm i ne w hether M ah can p r o v e , b yap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t h e q u a lif ie s f o rs a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . N el son, 22 2 F . 3d 54 5, 55 0-51 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Moore, Natasha, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq,), for appellant.Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered October 15, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>TAM Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Garcia, Nancy v 21st Century Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2698 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 03, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Camillus G. LIEB v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 19084.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 6, 1955.

Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KRAFT, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s action claims for injuries allegedly suffered while cleaning defendant’s locomotive. Defendant initially objected to plaintiff’s interrogatories 7(b), 26, 29 and 36. By agreement, counsel have since disposed of all objections except that to 7(b).

Interrogatory 7(a) inquired whether defendant had any information that plaintiff’s alleged injuries or loss of earn■ings were actually the result of prior or subsequent injuries sustained in another accident or were the result of disease or other causes: 7(b) then asked,

> “If so, specify the nature and extent of plaintiff’s disability which defendant alleges to be due otherwise than to the accident in suit.”

The gist of defendant’s objection is that a statement of the nature and extent of plaintiff’s disability requires an expression of opinion or of a conclusion, probably expert in character. The question does not seek to elicit such a statement. It demands to know only what defendant alleges or claims is the nature and extent of any disability of the plaintiff which defendant alleges or claims arises from a cause other than the accident in suit. Such an inquiry which serves to identify or narrow the issues is permissible. Robinson v. Tracy, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 113; Webster Motor Car Co. v. Packard Motor Car Co., D.C., 16 F.R. D. 350; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., Sec. 33.17, p. 2311.

The objection is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              51
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,058
<PP&E>                                           5,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,589
<BONDS>                                          1,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        300
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,978
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    505
<INCOME-TAX>                                       167
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                338
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     77
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       415
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### BERTHA BLDG. CORP. v. NATIONAL THEATRES CORP.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

April 5, 1954.

See also, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 712; D.C., 106 F.Supp. 489.

Corcoran & Kostelanetz, by Boris Kostelanetz, New York City, for plaintiff.

Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Casky, by Stanley Godofsky, of counsel, New York City, for defendant.

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

In August, 1953, the defendant served upon the plaintiff requests for admissions as to the genuineness of four documents, described in said requests, and alleged to have been executed by one H. L. Gumbiner, now deceased. The answers to said requests were served and the defendant, claiming that the answers were inadequate, moved for an order striking said answers and directing that the genuineness of the said documents be deemed admitted.

After the hearing on the said motion, but before a decision had been rendered thereon, the plaintiff served amended answers to said requests for admissions.

The instant motion was then made for an order striking the amended answers and directing that the genuineness of the said documents be deemed admitted.

Under Rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A., it would appear to be the burden of the party upon whom the requests are served *340to either admit or deny the genuineness of the documents or, failing that, to set forth “in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny” the same.

The plaintiff, having failed to categorically admit or deny the genuineness of the documents in question, offers five reasons for its inability to do so, all of which, in the opinion of this Court, appear to be either inadequate, indefinite or frivolous.

The plaintiff may not now have the benefit and advantage of such answers, thereby making it necessary for the defendant to prove the said documents, without being required to answer to the defendant for the expenses which it may be obliged to incur in proving the same, as provided for in Rule 37 (c).

Accordingly, the plaintiff's amended answers to the requests for admissions will be deemed to constitute denials of the genuineness of the documents within the meaning of Rule 36.

Settle order on notice.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3140 

To grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to design, 

construct, and operate facilities for the purpose of developing and producing biological products in order to meet critical national needs for 

such biological products, in response to potential bioterrorist attacks 

or naturally occurring pathogens. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

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

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to design, construct, and operate facilities for 

the purpose of developing and producing biological products in order to meet critical national needs for such 

biological products, in response to potential bioterrorist 

attacks or naturally occurring pathogens. 

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 ‘‘Biosecurity and Vac5 cine Development Improvement Act of 2010’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3140 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF BIOLOGICAL 

2 PRODUCTS. 

3 Subpart 1 of part F of title III of the Public Health 

4 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 et seq.) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 352A. DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF BIOLOGI7 CAL PRODUCTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may design, con9 struct, and operate one or more facilities for the purpose 

10 of developing and producing biological products to meet 

11 critical national needs for such biological products, in re12 sponse to potential bioterrorist attacks or to naturally oc13 curring pathogens, for which the Secretary determines 

14 that private industry has not devoted adequate develop15 ment effort, or has not produced adequate stocks of, such 

16 needed biological products. 

17 ‘‘(b) COMPETITIVE AWARD.—In carrying out the au18 thority described in subsection (a), the Secretary— 

19 ‘‘(1) shall ensure that there is competition and 

20 may establish a public-private partnership to design, 

21 construct, own, and operate a facility described in 

22 subsection (a); and 

23 ‘‘(2) may use the authority to enter into other 

24 transactions under section 319L to establish such a 

25 facility.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Dominique Leonard P. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Stephanie M., Appellant; St. Vincent’s Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 72]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about May 13, 2003, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of the subject children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The testimony of the agency’s caseworker at the fact-finding hearing provided clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage the parent-children relation*360ship by referring respondent for drug rehabilitation and domestic violence counseling, but was frustrated by an uncooperative parent who failed to enter or complete these programs *(see e.g. Matter of Jonathan R.M.,*26 AD3d 205 [2006]; *Matter of Angel G.,*13 AD3d 113 [2004]). The conclusion that termination of parental rights, rather than a suspended judgment, was in the children’s best interests is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence showing that at the time of the dispositional hearing the children had been in foster care for over three years, in the same foster home for 2V2 years, and developed a stable and positive bond with the foster parents *(see Matter of Tiffany*A., 242 AD2d 709, 713-714 [1997]).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.