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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2660 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball 

Veterans Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. MCCAUL (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. 

GRANGER, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. REYES, Ms. JACKSON LEE

of Texas, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. OLSON, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

CARTER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. HALL, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. FLORES, Mr. 

BURGESS, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, and Mr. MARCHANT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOMBALL VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 122 North Holderrieth BouleVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:17 Jul 27, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2660.IH H2660

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2660 IH

1 vard in Tomball, Texas, shall be known and designated 

2 as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tomball Veterans 

7 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1822 

CAROLYN E. O'CONNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AAMCO/CINNAT, INCORPORATED; COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00328-REP)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn E. O’Connor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carolyn E. O’Connor appeals the district court’s order

dismissing as frivolous her civil action. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

O’Connor’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.

See O’Connor v. AAMCO/Cinnat, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00328-REP (E.D. Va.

filed June 5, 2006 & entered June 6, 2006). 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.

DISMISSED
#### STERN et al. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 5, 1896.)

Customs Duties — Reliquidation—Appeal.

A reliquidaiion of duties, pursuant to a decision of the board of general appraisers, does not extend the time for taking an appeal from the liquidation, nor give a new right of appeal.

*608This was an appeal by Stern, Leerberger & Stern from a decision of tbe board of general appraisers, sustaining tbe refusal of the collector of the port of New York to entertain the protest of the importers against a reliquidation óf duties. The importations were made at various dates in 1891 and 1892. Protests were made against the collector’s liquidation of duties on these importations, and, pursuant to specific decisions of the board of general appraisers, reliquidations were made, in all the cases, on January 11, 1894. A protest against such reliquidation was filed by the importers on January 20, 1894, which the collector refused to entertain, because filed too late, claiming that a reliquidation,, pursuant to a decision of the general appraisers, does not extend the time for lodging a protest.

Stephen G-. Clarke, for plaintiffs.

H. D. Sedgwick, Asst. U. S. Atty.

WHEELER, District Judge.

These importers appear to have got such a decision upon an appeal to the board of general appraisers that they did not apply to the circuit court for a review, but left it for transmission to the collector. Upon reliquidation this second appeal has been taken. If this appeal includes anything not covered by the former appeal, it is, as to that, altogether too late. If not, it was ended by the disposition made of that, which the statute makes absolutely conclusive. 26 Stat. 137, 138, § 14. The case of Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607, 8 Sup. Ct. 1328, relied upon for the importers, arose under a different statute, and involved no question as to a second appeal from a collector’s decision, but only, in this respect, to the time of taking the first. Decision of appraisers affirmed.
ex10_34.htm




Exhibit 10.34


 


Listing of Executive Officers who are Parties to the Form of Change in Control Severance Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10.28 to Compass Minerals International, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 and amendment filed as Exhibit 10.3 to Compass Minerals International, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009) and Restrictive Covenant Agreement (filed as Exhibit 10.4 to Compass Minerals International, Inc.’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 23, 2006).


 




	  	
Keith Clark


	 	 
	  	
Rodney Underdown


	 	 
	  	
Gerald Bucan


	 	 
	  	
Ron Bryan
cool_ex1087.htm

EXHIBIT 10.87 



 

PURCHASE ORDER

 

In accordance with the MOU between the Jatropha Growers and Cool Technologies, this is the first purchase order for 10 Units, as specified in the MOU.

 

10 units of the MG80 Ford 350 series completed as specified by Jatropha at a firm price of $_________ (each unit consists of a truck with generator installed)

 

Terms:

 

Draw Down Letter of Credit with the terms as follows:

 

25% within 45 days of this order

25% within 90 days of this order

50% within 10 days after delivery of the unit to the customer and acceptance

 

The second payment should be accompanied by a progress report that includes certification that 50% of the work has been completed.

 
The delivery will be specified by Jatropha at an acceptable border crossing for Cool Tech and Jatropha. The import test of the Mexican customs agent of Jatropha will be proof of delivery and acceptance.
 

Once Cool Tech accepts the purchase order, Jatropha will present the specifications for each unit within 5 days.

 



 

Pedro Ramos Tiburcio, presidente 

 

Accepted by:

 

 

Timothy Hassett, Chairman and CEO of Cool Technologies, Inc.

 

LIC. PEDRO RAMOS TIBURCIO          Fecha:    9 de ABRIL DEL 2018

 

VASCONCELOS NO. 47 ESQ. AGUSTIN OLACHEA COL. 8 DE OCTUBRE CHETUMAL, QUINTANA ROO

E-mail: unpjmex@live.com.mx

 

	 
	
1

	

 
	 


 

 

 

 

 

VASCONCELOS NO. 47 ESQ. AGUSTIN OLACHEA COL. 8 DE OCTUBRE CHETUMAL, QUINTANA ROO

E-mail: unpjmex@live.com.mx

 

 


	
2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1322

THERESA C. DEWS; EDGAR B. DEWS, JR., Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DENNY’S RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1636-JFM) Submitted: July 30, 1999 Decided: August 12, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan E. Halperin, REGAN, HALPERIN & LONG, P.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Kevin Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Theresa C. Dews and her husband appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action. 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 Dews v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc. , No. CA-98-1636-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 8, 1999). 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
<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>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                    169,760       53,063
<SECURITIES>                                    0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                              31,834       24,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0            0
<INVENTORY>                                     0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          777,804      949,068
<PP&E>                                     34,086       30,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,799,009    1,230,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     264,224      345,359
<BONDS>                                         0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0            0
<PREFERRED>                                     0            0
<COMMON>                                        8            7
<OTHER-SE>                              1,301,390      705,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,799,009    1,230,311
<SALES>                                    44,366       20,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           44,366       20,076
<CGS>                                      16,794        8,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              16,794        8,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           51,283        9,721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (27,690)      21,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (27,690)      21,872
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0            0
<CHANGES>                                       0            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (27,690)      21,872
<EPS-BASIC>                              ($0.36)       $0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                              ($0.36)       $0.29



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman JUAN M. PESINA

United States Air Force

ACM S32196

17 July 2014

Sentence adjudged 9 October 2013 by SP CM convened at Nellis Air Force

Base, Nevada . Military Judge: Christopher M. Schumann

.

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge and confinement for 5 months.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Nicholas Carter and Major

Jennifer J. Raab

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christense n

.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred.  

### Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

 The Court notes that the Court

- Martial Order (CMO), dated 16 December 2013 is incorrect in that it fails to

indicate pleas and findings for the specifications. The Court orders the promulgation of a corrected CMO.ACM S32196 2 

### Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3150 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3150

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
  coverage, as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of 
 containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated 
    needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps container, 
   decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or 
         similar program under part D of the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2011

 Mr. Whitfield (for himself and Ms. DeGette) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
  coverage, as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of 
 containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated 
    needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps container, 
   decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or 
         similar program under part D of the Medicare program.

    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 ``Medicare Safe Needle Disposal 
Coverage Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CONTAINMENT, REMOVAL, DECONTAMINATION AND DISPOSAL 
              OF HOME-GENERATED NEEDLES, SYRINGES, AND OTHER SHARPS 
              THROUGH A SHARPS CONTAINER, DECONTAMINATION/DESTRUCTION 
              DEVICE, OR SHARPS-BY-MAIL PROGRAM OR SIMILAR PROGRAM 
              UNDER MEDICARE PART D.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting after 
``regulations of the Secretary'' the following: ``and including devices 
approved for home use by the Food and Drug Administration for the safe 
and effective containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of 
home-generated needles, syringes, and other sharps through a sharps 
container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail 
program or similar program''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2012.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4336-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated September 10, 
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 16, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Puerto is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 10, 2017.

    The municipalities of Aguas Buenas, Barranquitas, 
Bayam[oacute]n, Camuy, Cata[ntilde]o, Ciales, Comerio, Hatillo, 
Jayuya, Las Piedras, Quebradillas, Salinas, San Juan, Vega Baja, and 
Yauco for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20444 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4551** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RONALD ST. PHARD , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District o f South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00866

- RBH

- 2 )

Submitted : May 27, 2010 Decided: June 1 7 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, D AVIS , and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Carrie A. Fisher, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Ronald St. Phard was indicted, along with three

co - defendants, and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (“Count One”) and possession with intent to distribute heroin, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2006) (“Count Two”). Following a jury trial of St. Phard and co

- defendant Kastler Cherisme, the men were convicted of both counts in the indictment. Thereafter, St. Phard filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial, argui ng that the Government had used his post

- Miranda *

On appeal, St. Phard argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule 33 motion. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 33 motion. See United States v. Fulche r , 250 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing review standard)
. To the extent the prosecution committed Doyle error, we find that any error was harmless. See Williams v. Zahradnick , 632 F.2d 353, 360

- 62 (4th silence against him, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 (1975). The district court denied St. Phard’s motion and subsequently sentenced St. Phard to forty

- one months of imprisonment on Counts One and Two. St. Phard timely noted his appeal.

* Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).3 Cir. 1980) ( stating five

- factor test to dete rmin e if prosecutor’s comments constitute reversible error ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials on appeal and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
The Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 1996 and October 31, 1996, the
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three and Nine Months ended 
October 31, 1996 and 1995, and the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the
Nine Months ended October 31, 1996 and 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         33,340 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,569 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               38,204       
<PP&E>                                          1,595      
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (504)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 39,468      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,135    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                          136 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,111       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39,468         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,280          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,313          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,001       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 12       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   955     
<INCOME-TAX>                                      262      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               692      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                      692 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .07 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .07 
        

</TABLE>