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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 44 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 11, 1999.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 437) to provide for a Chief Financial Officer in the Executive Office 
of the President. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9,

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

_________________________

NO. 14-12-00634-CV

_________________________

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant

V.

DANFORD MAINTENANCE SERVICE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 48875

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

On May 16, 2012, Danford Maintenance Service, Inc., filed a notice of appeal 

from the final judgment signed April 16, 2012, and the appeal was assigned to this court 

under our appellate number 14-12-00507-CV. On May 29, 2012, The Dow Chemical 

Company filed a notice of cross-appeal from the same judgment, which was assigned to 

this court under our appellate number 14-12-00634-CV. 
2

On July 25, 2012, The Dow Chemical Company filed an unopposed motion to 

consolidate the cross-appeals. The motion is granted and the court consolidates the two 

above-referenced causes for all purposes. The issues, records, and documents filed in 

cause number 14-12-00634-CV are consolidated into cause number 14-12-00507-CV.

The consolidated appeal shall proceed under appeal number 14-12-00507-CV, and appeal 

number 14-12-00634-CV is hereby dismissed. See Livingston v. Arrington, No. 03-11-

00197-CV, No. 03-11-00266-CV, 2011WL 2297705, *1 (Tex. App. -- Austin Jun. 10, 

2011, no pet.) (mem. op). Appellate deadlines will run from the date that the record in 

appeal number 14-12-00507-CV is complete.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Busby.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,468
<PP&E>                                           2,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,522
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,795
<SALES>                                         23,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,269
<CGS>                                           16,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
### §9420. Recruit basic training: privacy

The Secretary of the Air Force shall require that access by military training instructors and other training personnel to a living area in which recruits are housed during basic training shall be limited after the end of the training day, other than in the case of an emergency or other exigent circumstance, to military training instructors and other training personnel who are of the same sex as the recruits housed in that living area or to superiors in the chain of command of those recruits who, if not of the same sex as the recruits housed in that living area, are accompanied by a member (other than a recruit) who is of the same sex as the recruits housed in that living area.

(Added Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, §522(c)(1), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2013, §9320; renumbered §9420, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(a)(3), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1832.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 9320 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Implementation

Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, §522(c)(3), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2013, provided that: "The Secretary of the Air Force shall implement section 9320 [now 9420] of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions of that section are applied to all recruit basic training classes beginning not later than the first such class that enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999."
#### MOSER v. MOSER

No. 542P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 273

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990.
#### § 700.195 General.

Incidental expenses are those reasonable expenses, as determined by the Commission, to be incidental to the purchase of the replacement dwelling, but not prepaid.
NO. 07-07 -020 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU NE 30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ PEDRO MENDEZ, APPE LLA NT

V. CI TY OF AM AR ILLO, APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 950 89- D; H ON ORABLE KELLY G. M OOR E, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. CO NC UR RI NG OPI NI ON I join in the Court’s judgm e nt an d in its opinio n, w ith the ex cept ion of the Cou rt’s ci tati on of s ect ion 311.034 of t he Gov er nment Cod e. Tex
. Gov ’t Code An n . § 31 1 .034 (V er non Su pp. 2 007)
. I do not t hin k s ect ion 311. 034 has any appl ic ati on to thi s e lecti on cont est
. See Iga l v. Brightstar Info rm ation Techn ology Group, Inc. , 250 S.W .3d 7 8, 84 n.6 (Te x . 200 8). Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
#### § 39.730 Which standards must student transportation vehicles meet?

All vehicles used by schools to transport students must meet or exceed all appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards and State or Tribal motor vehicle safety standards. The Bureau will not fund transportation mileage and costs incurred transporting students in vehicles that do not meet these standards.
#### § 117.7 Disbursement or expenditure of surplus funds.

Except as provided in the regulations in this part, no disbursement or expenditure of surplus funds of Indians shall be made without the consent of the Indian owner and until authorization has been obtained from the Commissioner. Application by an Indian or his legal guardian, or if he is a minor, by his parent or legal guardian, for the expenditure of surplus funds shall be presented to the Commissioner, fully justified with the appropriate attachments such as court orders, decrees or other papers. Such application shall contain full information regarding the individual including his cash balance, the sum invested, the number of shares in the Osage mineral estate, total income from all sources including that paid on behalf of minors, the family status and the occupation or industry of the applicant. When request is made for payment to the individual without supervision, the record of said individual and his ability to handle such funds shall be shown.
### §551. Automatic preservation of avoided transfer

Any transfer avoided under section 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 724(a) of this title, or any lien void under section 506(d) of this title, is preserved for the benefit of the estate but only with respect to property of the estate.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2602.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 551 is adopted from the House bill and the alternative in the Senate amendment is rejected. The section is clarified to indicate that a transfer avoided or a lien that is void is preserved for the benefit of the estate, but only with respect to property of the estate. This prevents the trustee from asserting an avoided tax lien against after acquired property of the debtor.

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section is a change from present law. It specifies that any avoided transfer is automatically preserved for the benefit of the estate. Under current law, the court must determine whether or not the transfer should be preserved. The operation of the section is automatic, unlike current law, even though preservation may not benefit the estate in every instance. A preserved lien may be abandoned by the trustee under proposed 11 U.S.C. 554 if the preservation does not benefit the estate. The section as a whole prevents junior lienors from improving their position at the expense of the estate when a senior lien is avoided.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0035-18

FREDDY GARCIA, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion in which SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

As it did two years ago in Owings v. State, 541 S.W.3d 144, 150 (Tex. Crim. App.

2017), the Court today holds that the trial court’s error in failing to grant Appellant’s request

to force the State to elect which particular act of sexual assault it would rely upon to prove

the charge against him was harmless. In so holding, the Court once again employs the

standard for determining whether trial error is harmful contained in Rule 44.2(a) of the Rules

of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a). This is the rule that governs errors of
GARCIA — 2

constitutional dimension, which mirrors the standard the United States Supreme Court has

mandated for errors of federal constitutional dimension, in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S.

18 (1967). For reasons that I developed in my concurring opinion in Owings, I remain

dubious, at best, that this constitutes the appropriate harm standard for election error. See

Owings, 541 S.W.3d at 154–56 (Yeary, J., concurring) (arguing that election error neither

definitively implicates the constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict nor bedrock due

process notice requirements).

But what was true of Owings is also true in this case: It does not ultimately matter

which standard for harm is applicable, since the Court deems the error harmless even under

the constitutional standard. If we can say beyond a reasonable doubt, as the Court does today,

that the error did not contribute to Appellant’s conviction, then we can also say that it could

not in any way have affected his “substantial rights” for purposes of the non-constitutional

standard in Rule 44.2(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). Because, as in Owings, it does not matter

which harm standard we employ, this case, like Owings, is not the best one for resolving that

question, and we should not.

With these remarks, I concur in the result.

FILED: November 20, 2019

PUBLISH
### §1306. Property of the estate

(a) Property of the estate includes, in addition to the property specified in section 541 of this title—

(1) all property of the kind specified in such section that the debtor acquires after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first; and

(2) earnings from services performed by the debtor after the commencement of the case but before the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a case under chapter 7, 11, or 12 of this title, whichever occurs first.

(b) Except as provided in a confirmed plan or order confirming a plan, the debtor shall remain in possession of all property of the estate.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2647; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, §257(u), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3116.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 1306(a)(2) adopts a provision contained in the Senate amendment in preference to a similar provision contained in the House bill.

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 541 is expressly made applicable to chapter 13 cases by section 103(a). Section 1306 broadens the definition of property of the estate for chapter 13 purposes to include all property acquired and all earnings from services performed by the debtor after the commencement of the case.

Subsection (b) nullifies the effect of section 521(3), otherwise applicable, by providing that a chapter 13 debtor need not surrender possession of property of the estate, unless required by the plan or order of confirmation.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–554 inserted reference to chapter 12 in pars. (1) and (2).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, but not applicable to cases commenced under this title before that date, see section 302(a), (c)(1) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
#### Louis Brown and Others, Appellants, v. Fannie Grossman and Others, Respondents.

Motion granted. Order signed.
### [§2308. Renumbered §3069]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2308, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 131; Oct. 23, 1992, Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, §820(a), 106 Stat. 2458; May 31, 1993, Pub. L. 103–35, title II, §201(e)(2), 107 Stat. 99; Nov. 30, 1993, Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title IX, §904(d)(1), 107 Stat. 1728, related to assignment and delegation of procurement functions and responsibilities, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1503(b)(1), title X, §10001, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3297, 3404, effective Oct. 13, 1994, except as otherwise provided.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1735

ERIC E. MILLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY; STATE OF VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; DOUGLAS DALTON, JR., CEO; JESSICA D. ABER; JAMES P. KENT, JR.; VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JASON S. MIYARES , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , Dist rict Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00762

- DJN )

Submitted : December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Eric E. Miller , Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Richmond, Virginia; Andrew Franklin Gann, Jr. , Katherine Elizabeth Lehnen , Richmond, Virginia , Sylvia Macon Kastens , MCGUIREWOODS, LLP , Norfolk, Virginia , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1735 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Eric E. Miller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended civil complaint as to some defendants without prej udice for failure to serve under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and the remaining defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district c ourt ’s order

. Miller v. Colonial Pipeline Co

. , No. 3:21

-

cv - 00762

- DJN (E.D. Va. June 24, 2022)

. We deny Miller’s motion for appointment of
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1735 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
### Relationships between geology and engineering characteristics of soils and weathered rocks of Fairfax County and vicinity, Virginia

By: S. F. ObermeierW. H. Langer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1344

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (10038 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (15969 pdf)                        
- Tables:                               - **Table 1**                            (3292 pdf)                        
  - **Table 4**                            (2788 pdf)                        
  - **Table 2**                            (1758 pdf)                        
  - **Table 3**                            (2135 pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Surface materials map of Fairfax County, Virginia(1978)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 30.119 How does the Secretary review and approve alternative requirements? ( a ) The Secretary and the Secretary of Education will jointly approve plans for alternative requirements for standards, assessments, and an accountability system or determine that the proposed alternative requirements do not meet the requirements of section 1111 of the Act. ( 1 ) The Secretary will consult with the Secretary of Education through the review of a proposal for alternative requirements.
( 2 ) Upon receipt of a proposal for alternative requirements for standards, assessments, and an accountability system, in part or in whole, the Secretary will begin coordination with the Secretary of Education on review and approval of the proposal.
( 3 ) The Secretary will provide a status update regarding the processing of the proposal within 120 days of receipt of the proposal and every thirty (30) days thereafter to discuss the stage of the review process.
( b ) If the Secretary and the Secretary of Education approve a proposal for alternative requirements, the Secretary will: ( 1 ) Promptly notify the tribal governing body or school board; and
( 2 ) Indicate the date for which the alternative proposal will be effective.
( c ) If a proposal for alternative requirements is not approved, the tribal governing body or school board will be notified that: ( 1 ) The proposal has not been approved; and
( 2 ) The reasons why the alternative proposal was not approved.
( d ) If a proposal for alternative requirements is not approved, the Secretary will provide technical assistance to the tribal governing body or school board to help to overcome the reasons why the alternative proposal was not approved.
( e ) If a proposal for alternative requirements is not approved, or is not moving forward, then Tribes may individually request formal consultation with the Secretary and Secretary of Education.