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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1813

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2003

Received 

AN ACT

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and 

foreign centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, 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 1813 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Torture Victims Relief 

3 Reauthorization Act of 2003’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMES5 TIC TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

6 TORTURE. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

8 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 

9 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

11 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 

12 Department of Health and Human Services for fis13 cal years 2004 and 2005, there are authorized to be 

14 appropriated to carry out subsection (a) (relating to 

15 assistance for domestic centers and programs for the 

16 treatment of victims of torture) $20,000,000 for fis17 cal year 2004 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 

18 2005.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2003. 

21 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOR22 EIGN TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF 

23 TORTURE. 

24 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

25 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 

26 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows: 
3

HR 1813 RDS 

1 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of 

2 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

3 years 2004 and 2005 pursuant to chapter 1 of part 

4 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are 

5 authorized to be appropriated to the President to 

6 carry out section 130 of such Act (relating to assist7 ance for centers in foreign countries and programs 

8 for the treatment of victims of torture) $11,000,000 

9 for fiscal year 2004 and $12,000,000 for fiscal year 

10 2005.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2003. 

13 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 

14 UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE 

15 UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 

16 VICTIMS OF TORTURE. 

17 Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fis18 cal years 2004 and 2005 pursuant to chapter 3 of part 

19 I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are author20 ized to be appropriated to the President for a voluntary 

21 contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for 
4

HR 1813 RDS 

1 Victims of Torture $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and 

2 $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.

Passed the House of Representatives November 19, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Opinion filed February 3, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-21-00199-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.G., E.J.G., A.LG. II, AND E.F.G.,

CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 318th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FM64112

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

This is an appeal from a final order in which the trial court terminated the 

parental rights of the mother and the father of L.L.G., E.J.G., A.LG. II, and E.F.G.

See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2021). Both parents filed a notice 

of appeal. We affirm.

Each parent’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which counsel

professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and 

concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 
2

Each counsel provided his/her client with a copy of the respective brief. 

Counsel also informed the parents of their right to review the record and file a pro 

se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), each parent’s attorney provided his/her client with

a copy of the appellate record. We conclude that both attorneys have satisfied their

duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. 

We note that neither parent has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

briefs. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal—as to 

each parent—is frivolous. 

We note that counsel for the mother has filed in this court a motion to 

withdraw as counsel for the mother. In light of a recent holding by the Texas 

Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed 

in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 

520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s 

obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards 

for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. Accordingly, we must deny the motion to 

withdraw that was filed by the mother’s court-appointed attorney. See id. at 27. 

We deny the motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s order of 

termination. 

PER CURIAM

February 3, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
Exhibit 10(b)




	
      
        INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT
      
    





	The Board of Directors 

      Ambac Assurance Corporation: 




	We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
      statement on Form N-1A of Merrill Lynch Core Principal Protected Fund of
      our report dated January 21, 2003 on the consolidated financial statements
      of Ambac Assurance Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002
      and 2001, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
      31, 2002, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ambac
      Financial Group, Inc., which was filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on March 28, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A
      of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. which was filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on March 28, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A
      of Ambac Financial Group, Inc., which was filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on November 19, 2003.




	/s/ KPMG LLP




	New York, New York 

      February 24, 2004
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1671

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit cooperatives to 

pay dividends on preferred stock without reducing patronage dividends. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2003

Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. 

HULSHOF, Mr. RAMSTAD, and Mr. MCCRERY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

cooperatives to pay dividends on preferred stock without 

reducing patronage dividends.

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 ‘‘Cooperative Dividend 

5 Equity Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 1671 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS ON STOCK OF COOPERA2 TIVES WITHOUT REDUCING PATRONAGE 

3 DIVIDENDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1388 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to patronage 

6 dividend defined) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: ‘‘For purposes of paragraph (3), net earnings 

8 shall not be reduced by amounts paid during the year as 

9 dividends on capital stock or other proprietary capital in10 terests of the organization to the extent that the articles 

11 of incorporation or bylaws of such organization or other 

12 contract with patrons provide that such dividends are in 

13 addition to amounts otherwise payable to patrons which 

14 are derived from business done with or for patrons during 

15 the taxable year.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 this section shall apply to distributions in taxable years 

18 beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 551.202 General principles. In all exemption determinations, the agency must observe the following principles: ( a ) Each employee is presumed to be FLSA nonexempt unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions of this subpart and such supplemental interpretations or instructions issued by OPM. The agency must designate an employee FLSA exempt when the agency correctly determines that the employee meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions of this subpart and such supplemental interpretations or instructions issued by OPM.
( b ) Exemption criteria must be narrowly construed to apply only to those employees who are clearly within the terms and spirit of the exemption.
( c ) The burden of proof rests with the agency that asserts the exemption.
( d ) An employee who clearly meets the criteria for exemption must be designated FLSA exempt. If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an employee meets the criteria for exemption, the employee will be designated FLSA nonexempt.
( e ) While established position descriptions and titles may assist in making initial FLSA exemption determinations, the designation of an employee as FLSA exempt or nonexempt must ultimately rest on the duties actually performed by the employee.
( f ) Although separate criteria are provided for the exemption of executive, administrative, and professional employees, those categories are not mutually exclusive. Employees who perform a combination of exempt duties set forth in this regulation may also qualify for exemption. For example, an employee whose primary duty involves a combination of exempt administrative and exempt executive work may qualify for exemption, *i.e.*, work that is exempt under one section of this part will not defeat the exemption under any other section.
( g ) Failure to meet the criteria for exemption under what might appear to be the most obvious criteria does not preclude exemption under another category. For example, an engineering technician who fails to meet the professional exemption criteria may be performing exempt administrative work, or an administrative officer who fails to meet the administrative criteria may be performing exempt executive work.
( h ) Although it is normally feasible and more convenient to identify a single exemption category, this is not always appropriate. An exemption may be based on a combination of functions, no one of which constitutes the primary duty, or the employee's primary duty may involve two categories which are intermingled and difficult to segregate. This does not preclude designating an employee FLSA exempt, provided the work as a whole clearly meets the other exemption criteria. The agency is responsible for showing and documenting that the work as a whole clearly meets one or more of the exemption criteria.
#### § 301.301 Eligibility under the authority of Executive Order 12362.

Employees who serve under overseas local hire appointments as defined in § 315.608(b) of this chapter and meet the eligibility criteria of § 315.608(a) of this chapter are eligible for noncompetitive career-conditional, term, or temporary limited appointment when they return to the United States.
§ 1639.52 Board review. ( a ) A debtor may dispute the existence of the debt, the amount of debt, or the terms of repayment. A request to review a disputed debt must be submitted to the Board official who provided the notice of intent to offset within 30 calendar days of the debtor's receipt of the written notice described in § 1639.51.
( b ) If the debtor requests an opportunity to inspect or copy the Board's records concerning the disputed claim, the Board will grant 10 business days for the review. The time period will be measured from the time the request for inspection is granted or from the time the debtor receives a copy of the records.
( c ) Pending the resolution of a dispute by the debtor, transactions in any of the debtor's account(s) maintained in the Board may be temporarily suspended to the extent of the debt that is owed. Depending on the type of transaction, the suspension could preclude its payment, removal, or transfer, as well as prevent the payment of interest or discount due on the transaction. Should the dispute be resolved in the debtor's favor, the suspension will be immediately lifted.
( d ) During the review period, interest, penalties, and administrative costs authorized by law will continue to accrue.
( e ) If the debtor does not exercise the right to request a review within the time specified in this section or if, as a result of the review, it is determined that the debt is due and no written agreement is executed, then administrative offset will be ordered in accordance with the regulations in this subpart without further notice.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65768-65769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27829]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 83 FR 64630, 17 
December 2018.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, December 
19, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The following item will not be considered 
during the Open Meeting on Wednesday, December 19, 2018:
    <bullet> Whether to adopt rules to implement Section 955 of the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by requiring 
disclosure about the ability of a company's employees or directors to 
hedge or offset

[[Page 65769]]

any decrease in the market value of equity securities granted as 
compensation to, or held directly or indirectly by, an employee or 
director.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27829 Filed 12-19-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### John M. McGrath, Respondent, v. Martin T. Manton, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Townley, Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anastasia Oleksy et al., Respondents, against Cunard White Star Limited et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 25, 2013

p1022

Order 

Clerk

October 25, 2013

147018

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147018

COA: 305040

Emmet CC: 10-003388-FH

JOHN DAVID GRATSCH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment 

holding that offense variable scoring errors are reviewed to determine whether there is 

adequate evidentiary support for a particular score and whether the sentencing court 

properly exercised its discretion. As this Court stated in People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 

438 (2013): “Under the sentencing guidelines, the circuit court’s factual determinations 

are reviewed for clear error and must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Whether the facts, as found, are adequate to satisfy the scoring conditions prescribed by 

statute, i.e., the application of the facts to the law, is a question of statutory interpretation, 

which an appellate court reviews de novo.” (Citing People v Osantowski, 481 Mich 103 

(2008)). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 2601.201 Delegation. ( a ) The authority to solicit, accept, and utilize gifts in accordance with this part resides with the Director.
( b ) The Director may delegate this authority.
( c ) Authorities delegated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section may be redelegated only through a written delegation authorizing an agency employee to solicit or accept specific types of gifts, or a gift for a specific purpose, function, or event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,514,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,531,860
<PP&E>                                          68,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,567,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,896
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,062
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,964,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,567,761
<SALES>                                            416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   742
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (211,309)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (211,309)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (211,309)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
statutory business trust Series I (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hussey, Chief Financial Officer of
Richman American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




/s/James
      HusseyJames
      HusseyChief
      Financial Officer of Richman AmericanCredit Corp., Manager of the RegistrantFebruary
      13, 2009
### SUBCHAPTER IV—ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

This subchapter is comprised of part D (§401 et seq.) of title I of Pub. L. 90–351. A prior part D related to block grants by Bureau of Justice Assistance, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4328. For similar provisions, see part A (§10151 et seq.) of subchapter V of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the nine months ended January 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          46,000
<SECURITIES>                                   350,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,847,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,776,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,434,000
<PP&E>                                         604,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 193,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,189,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,291,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,699,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,189,000
<SALES>                                      6,046,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,046,000
<CGS>                                        2,948,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,645,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (454,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (454,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (454,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>