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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2293

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 of

the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast

and cervical cancer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1993

Mr. KYL (for himself and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy

and Commerce

A BILL

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section

1001 of the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast and cervical cancer.

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

3 SECTION. 1. BREAST AND CERVICAL INFORMATION.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Breast and Cervical Cancer Information Act of 1993’’.

6 (b) AMENDMENT.—Title X of the Public Health

7 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended by adding

8 at the end the following new section:
2

HR 2293 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1010. BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER INFORMATION.

2 ‘‘Each recipient of a grant or contract under section

3 1001 shall provide, to such individuals as the recipient de4 termines appropriate, information (in a culturally com5 petent manner) concerning breast and cervical cancer, in6 cluding information on the need for breast self-examina7 tions and the skills for such self-examinations, and shall

8 refer such clients as the recipient determines appropriate

9 for breast and cervical cancer screening, treatment or

10 other services.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 21

Storage USA, Inc.
Subsidiaries

All subsidiaries are organized under Tennessee law unless otherwise indicated.

Direct

Storage USA Trust (Maryland)
Huron Acquisition, Inc.
SUSA Finance Corp. (Delaware)
SUSA Holdings, LP
SUSA Partnership, LP

Indirect

441 Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
ABC Self Storage Limited Co. (New Mexico)
Buzzman Partners I, LP  (Pennsylvania)
Buzzman Partners II, LP (Pennsylvania)
Calvine-SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Clarendon Storage Associates LP (Virginia)
Cole/Morgan, Ltd. (Texas)
Dade County Mini-Storage Associates, Ltd. (Florida)
DMMJ Limited Partnership (Maryland)
Elk Grove - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Frankford Road Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
McNeil Drive Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
Oxnard-SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Parklawn Storage Partners, LP
Preston Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
River Road Limited Partnership (Maryland)
Rocklin-SPC, LLC  (Delaware)
Savi Ranch-SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Southeast Mini-Storage Limited Partners (Florida)
Spring Creek Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
Storage Acquisition Portfolio, L.L.C. (Delaware)
Storage Development Portfolio, L.L.C. (Delaware)
Storage Partners of Eatontown, LLC (New Jersey)
Storage Partners of Egg Harbor, LLC (New Jersey)
Storage Partners of Paoli, LP
Storage Partners of West Colonial, L.L.C. (Florida)
Storage Portfolio I, LLC (Delaware)
Storage USA Franchise Corp
Storage USA of Palm Beach County LP (Maryland)
Sunset Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
SUSA Brooklyn John, L.P. (New York)
SUSA Brooklyn Snyder, L.P. (New York)
SUSA Columbia, LP
SUSA Construction, LLC (Delaware)
SUSA Germantown, LP
SUSA Hackensack LP
SUSA Harrison, LP
SUSA Holdings, LP
SUSA Hollywood, LP
SUSA Investments I, LLC (Virginia)
SUSA Investments II, LLC (Virginia)
SUSA Long Island, L.P. (New York)
SUSA Management, Inc.
SUSA Mesa, LP
SUSA Mt. Vernon, LLC (New York)
SUSA Nashville, L.P.
SUSA Omni LP
SUSA Orange, LP
SUSA Peachtree, LLC (Virginia)
SUSA Secaucus, LP
SUSA-TN, LLC
SUSA Whitney Mesa, Limited Partnership (Nevada)
SUSA/38th Avenue, Capitola, LP (California)
Tamiami Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
<PAGE>
                 EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2001,
included in the 2001 Annual Report to Stockholders of Ultimate
Electronics, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Ultimate
Electronics, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 33-94636, No. 33-92256, No. 33-92258, No. 333-41948 and
No. 333-43049) pertaining to the SoundTrack 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, the
Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Employee Stock Option Plan and the
Equity Incentive Plans, respectively, of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. of our
report dated March 8, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. included or incorporated by reference
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2001.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Denver, Colorado
April 27, 2001

                                       17
• Actual production, income, 

and expense records for the 

production and marketing 

period in which the disaster 

occurred (unless the agency 

already has this information); 

and

• Other items as required based 

on the individual application.

Eligibility and 

Limitations

Eligibility to receive the DSA will 

primarily be determined based on 

the following criteria:

• As a direct result of the disaster, 

the borrower is unable to pay all 

family living and farm operating 

expenses, payments to other 

creditors, and payments to FSA;

• The borrower must have 

operated a farm or ranch in a 

county designated as a disaster 

area or in a contiguous county. 

Each loan considered for DSA 

must have been outstanding at 

the time of the disaster;

• The borrower must have acted 

in good faith and complied with 

written agreements with FSA;

• The borrower must not be in 

non-monetary default;

The borrower must be current or not 

more than 90 days past due on any 

FSA loan when the DSA application 

is completed. No loan to be set aside 

may have a remaining term of less 

than two years. Loans must not be 

accelerated;

Overview

When Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

borrowers located in designated 

disaster areas or contiguous 

(adjoining) counties are unable to 

make their scheduled payment on 

any FSA debt, FSA is authorized to 

consider set-aside of one payment 

to allow the operation to continue. 

This program is authorized under 

Section 331A of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act.

Designation and 

Notification

The first time in a calendar year 

that a county in which a borrower 

farms, or a contiguous county, 

is designated as a disaster area 

by the President or Secretary of 

Agriculture, farmers indebted to 

FSA will be notified

of the availability of the Disaster 

Set-Aside Program (DSA) or they 

may inquire about eligibility at their 

local FSA office.

How to Apply

Borrowers have eight months from 

the date of designation to apply. 

A complete application for DSA 

consists of the following items:

• A written request for DSA 

signed by all parties liable for 

the debt;

• After the DSA is completed, the 

borrower will be current on all 

FSA loans;

• The borrower’s FSA debt has 

not been restructured since 

the disaster;

• The amount set aside will not 

exceed one year’s FSA payment;

• No loan may receive more than 

one disaster set- aside unless it is 

later restructured; and

• The borrower must be able to 

develop a positive cash-flow 

projection for the coming year.

Payment

Each payment set-aside must be 

repaid prior to the final maturity of 

the note. Any principal set-aside 

will continue to accrue interest until 

it is repaid.

More Information

For more information, visit 

fsa.usda.gov/farmloans or 

farmers.gov. Find your local 

USDA Service Center at 

farmers.gov.

FACT SHEET Disaster Set-Aside Program August 2019

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Calculation of 300% Per Diem Limit 

(For All Hazard Incident Response Travel Only) 

The General Services Administration (GSA) determines meals, incidentals, and lodging 

allowances based on a geographic basis, which can be found at GSA Per Diem. 

To calculate the allowed lodging and meals and incidental expense (M&IE) limit, (1) add meals, 

incidentals, and lodging allowance, then (2) multiply by 3. 

Example: 

Category Description Amount 300% Limit 

Meals & Incidentals GSA Per Diem $59

Lodging GSA Per Diem $96 

Total $155

$155 * 3 = $465

Allowable max lodging: $465-$59 (MIE) =$406

In the above example, the maximum reimbursement for meals, incidentals and lodging a 

traveler can receive is $465 per day.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION     I, Richard W. Sorenson, Principal Executive Officer and Member of Southeast Management Group,LLC, general partner of Southeast Acquisitions II, L.P. (“Registrant”) certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September30, 2006, of Southeast Acquisitions II, L.P. (“Registrant”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ Richard W. Sorenson,   Richard W. Sorenson,   Principal Executive Officer & Member
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 230

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to enhance the authority

of States and Indian tribes to disapprove the provision by the Secretary

of Energy of interim storage capacity for civilian spent nuclear fuel,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. LAROCCO introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to enhance

the authority of States and Indian tribes to disapprove

the provision by the Secretary of Energy of interim storage capacity for civilian spent nuclear fuel, 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,
2

•HR 230 IH

1 SECTION 1. ENHANCED AUTHORITY OF STATES AND IN2 DIAN TRIBES TO DISAPPROVE PROVISION OF

3 INTERIM STORAGE CAPACITY FOR CIVILIAN

4 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 135(d)(6) of the Nuclear

6 Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10155(d)(6)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) in subparagraph (A)—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘an aggregate of 300 or

10 more metric tons of’’ each place it appears; and

11 (B) by striking ‘‘the provision of 300 or

12 more metric tons of’’ and inserting ‘‘the provi13 sion of’’; and

14 (2) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and

15 inserting the following:

16 ‘‘(D) If any notice of disapproval is submitted to the

17 Congress under subparagraph (A), the proposed provision

18 of storage capacity at the site involved shall be dis19 approved.’’.

20 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 135(d)(4)

21 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.

22 10155(d)(4)) is amended in the last sentence by striking

23 ‘‘The process’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in para24 graph (6), the process’’.
3

•HR 230 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE FOR REMOVAL FROM IN2 TERIM STORAGE.

3 Section 135(e) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

4 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10155(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘3

5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘1 year’’.

6 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF NOTICE AND DISAPPROVAL

7 PROVISIONS TO STORAGE UNDER PRIOR AU8 THORITY.

9 Section 135 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

10 (42 U.S.C. 10155) is amended by adding at the end the

11 following new subsection:

12 ‘‘(j) APPLICABILITY TO STORAGE UNDER PRIOR

13 AUTHORITY.—The provisions of subsection (d)(6) shall

14 also apply to any additional storage capacity for civilian

15 spent nuclear fuel that is provided—

16 ‘‘(1) by the Secretary after the date of the en17 actment of this subsection at any Federal site;

18 ‘‘(2) pursuant to any provision of law other

19 than this section; and

20 ‘‘(3) pursuant to any agreement, contract, or

21 other obligation that—

22 ‘‘(A) was in effect before January 7, 1983;

23 and

24 ‘‘(B) authorizes or requires the Secretary

25 to provide such storage capacity on or after

26 such date.’’.
4

•HR 230 IH

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7553** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILLIE JEROME MCRAE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:98

- cr - 00037

- F

- 13 )

Submitted : March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Willie Jerome McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willie Jerome McRae appeals the distr ict court ’ s order denying his “Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)(6) to Vacate the Judgment for Re

- Sentence.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Unite d States v.
McRae , No. 5:98

- cr - 00037

- F

- 13 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2011) . 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.

AFFIRM ED
<!--  Default ver 1.2.2 --><META http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/Internet/invaldurl"/>
<!-- FSE_WIDTheme_war.ear version 18 -->
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2162 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2162

    To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on Diquat Dibromide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1993

Mr. Grandy (for himself and Mr. Castle) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on Diquat Dibromide.

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

SECTION 1. DIQUAT DIBROMIDE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  o-Diquat dibromide 1,1'-Ethylene-2,2'-dipyridylium                          No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        dibromide (CAS No. 85-00-7) (provided for in subheading                                                       31/96           ''
                        2933.90.15).............................................  Free                                                                . 

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2546

___________ Larry Delano Coleman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 14, 2011 Filed: July 19, 2011

___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Coleman appeals the tax court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action challenging a Notice of Determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals. After carefully reviewing the record de novo, see Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Comm’r , 594 F.3d 968, 969 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 86 (2010), we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate for the reasons stated by the tax court, and we find no merit to Coleman’s arguments on appeal. We also decline to consider-2- Coleman’s request for relief base d on changed circumstances. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2) (IRS Office of Appeals shall retain jurisdiction with respect to determination, including subsequent h earings, on issues regarding change in circumstances which affect s such determination). Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s decision. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00553-CR

Rodolfo Ramirez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 09-715-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Rodolfo Ramirez seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for burglary of a

habitation. Sentence was imposed on March 10, 2010. On July 1, the district clerk filed a letter from

Ramirez, dated June 26, asking to appeal his conviction. On July 12, the trial court appointed an

attorney to represent Ramirez on appeal. The clerk’s record was filed on September 17.

The deadline for perfecting appeal in this cause was April 9, 2010. Tex. R. App.

P. 26.2(a)(1). The only notice of appeal appearing in the record is appellant’s letter, which was not

timely. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any

manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 6, 2010

Do Not Publish

2
[DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 18 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 09 05 -J A-GJK MARIC ULTURE TE CHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONA L, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us FARM SERVICE AGENCY, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DE PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 5, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Inad m in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs be fo re t he U.S. Depar tm en t o f Agr ic ul tu re Case: 11-13186 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 1 of 2(“ USDA”), th e Nat io na l Ap pe al s Di vi si on (of th e USDA) d et erm in edth at Mar ic ul tu re Tech no lo gi es Int ern at io na l, In c., m us t re fundth e fed eral cro p d is as te r
as si st an ce p aym en t i t h adrece iv ed , $2 7,4 92 , forbu si ne ss lo ss es du e to hu rri can es th atst ru ckFlo rid a in 19 94 . The ref un d was ord eredbe cau se Mari cu ltur e fai le d t o
co m pl y wit h t he requi rem en t t ha t i t p ur ch as e Non -in su redCro p Di sa st er Ass is ta nc e Pro gr am

(“NAP”) co ve rag e fo r two y ears . Mari cu ltur e b ro ug htth is act io n i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt as anap pe al of t ha t ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on . Inanord er en te redon Ju ne 9, 2 01 1, the Dis tri ctCo urt, o n t he ba si s o f th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd , gra nt edth e Sec ret ary of th e USDA (an d the Farm Serv ic e Age nc y ) jud gm en t. The co urt co nc lu de d tha t t he refu ndde ci si on was s up po rte d by sub st an ti al ev id en ce an d was no t arbi tra ry , cap ric io us or a n abu se of d is cret io n. Mar ic ul tu re ap pe al s t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t t he Dis tri ct Co urt’s fi nd in gs (in supp ort o f it s ju dg m en t) are “ cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Ap pe ll an t’s Br. at20 , 27 -2 9. We fin d n o m eri t i n M ari cu ltur e’s ap pe al , forth e rea so ns st at ed in th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s J un e 9 , 20 11 ord er, an d t he refo re af firm . AFFIR MED.

2 Case: 11-13186 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 2 of 2