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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9994 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9994

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount that 
 can be withdrawn without penalty from individual retirement plans as 
                  first-time homebuyer distributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 2024

 Ms. Stevens 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 increase the amount that 
 can be withdrawn without penalty from individual retirement plans as 
                  first-time homebuyer distributions.

    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 ``First Time Homeowner Savings Plan 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON PENALTY-FREE FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER 
              DISTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 72(t)(8)(B)(i) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
``$25,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 72(t)(8) of such Code is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2025, 
                the $25,000 amount in subparagraph (B)(i) shall be 
                increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins, 
                        determined by substituting `calendar year 2024' 
                        for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph 
                        (A)(ii) thereof.
                Any increase determined under the preceding sentence 
                shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distributions made December 31, 2024, in taxable years ending 
after such date.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023081EN.01000801.xml

| 3.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/8

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2023/C 81/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 16.1.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.105732 |
| Member State | Cyprus |
| Region | Cyprus |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Σχέδιο κρατικής ενίσχυσης με βάση το Προσωρινό Πλαίσιο κρίσης για τη λήψη μέτρων κρατικής ενίσχυσης με σκοπό τη στήριξη της οικονομίας μετά την επίθεση της Ρωσίας κατά της Ουκρανίας προς τον κλάδο των εσπεριδοειδών / State Aid Scheme under the Temporary Crisis Framework to support the economy in context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine for the citrus sector |
| Legal basis | Ministerial Council Decision of 20th of December 2022 for the approval of proposal with number 1709/2022 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 500 000 EUR |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Growing of citrus fruits |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Department of Agriculture |
| Λεωφ. Λουκή Aκρίτα, 1412 Λευκωσία |

Date of adoption of the decision

16.1.2023

Aid number

SA.105732

Member State

Cyprus

Region

Cyprus

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Σχέδιο κρατικής ενίσχυσης με βάση το Προσωρινό Πλαίσιο κρίσης για τη λήψη μέτρων κρατικής ενίσχυσης με σκοπό τη στήριξη της οικονομίας μετά την επίθεση της Ρωσίας κατά της Ουκρανίας προς τον κλάδο των εσπεριδοειδών / State Aid Scheme under the Temporary Crisis Framework to support the economy in context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine for the citrus sector

Legal basis

Ministerial Council Decision of 20th of December 2022 for the approval of proposal with number 1709/2022

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 500 000 EUR

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Growing of citrus fruits

Name and address of the granting authority

Department of Agriculture

Λεωφ. Λουκή Aκρίτα, 1412 Λευκωσία

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 21
- 00066
- CV

__________________ IN RE GERALD B. WILSON

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07
- 02
- 02127
- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Gerald B. Wilson argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on two pro se motions that Wilson filed while he was represented by State Counsel for Offenders as statutorily appointed counsel in a sexually violent predator civil commitment proceeding. See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.005(a) . Wilson contends that he wants to represent himself in his next biennial review proceeding. See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.102

. Wilson argues that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on his pro se motions.2 A trial court does not have a ministerial duty to rule on pro se motions filed by a person who is represented by counsel in the case. See In re S.V ., 599 S .W.3d 25, 4 4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (op. on reh ’ g) ; In re Stanley , No. 09

- 15

- 00204

- CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6793, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont July 2 , 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on April 21, 2021 Opinion Delivered Apri l 22, 2021 Before Golemon , C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### Bowery Savings Bank v. Retail Realty, Inc., et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Defendants’ time to serve its answer is extended until 10 days after service upon the attorneys for the defendants-respondents of a copy of the order entered herein, with notice of entry. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and McNally, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00488-CV

Andre Joel Howard, Appellant

v.

Harris County Hospital District and TWCC, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-05-003705, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING 

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

Andre Joel Howard, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s denial of

his motion for summary judgment, grant of appellee’s special exceptions, and declaration that he is

a frivolous litigant. In general, appeals may be prosecuted only from a final judgment. Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Howard does not attempt to appeal from a final

judgment.

The district court declared appellant a frivolous litigant. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. § 11.051 (West 2002). The court expressly found that there was not a reasonable

probability that Howard would prevail and that he met the test for the numbers of lawsuits filed

during the preceding seven-year period. See id. § 11.054(1)(A). The order set a bond in order for

Howard to proceed. See id. § 11.055. Neither Chapter 11 of the civil practice and remedies code
 Section 51.014 enumerates various categories of interlocutory appeals. 1

2

nor section 51.014 of that code provides for an appeal from this type of order. See id. §§ 1.001- 1

.014; 51.014 (West Supp. 2005).

The court granted Harris County Hospital District’s special exceptions that it lodged

against Howard’s pleadings. When special exceptions are granted, a litigant has two options: amend

the pleadings or stand on the pleadings as filed, proceed to judgment, and test the pleadings on

appeal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 90, 91; Ford v. Performance Aircraft Servs., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 330, 336 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied); Butler Weldments Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 3 S.W.3d

654, 658 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). However, the simple grant of special exceptions with

an opportunity to amend is an unappealable interlocutory matter. Similarly, the simple denial of a

motion for summary judgment, as opposed to the grant and denial of cross-motions for summary

judgment, is an interlocutory matter that is not appealable. See City of Garland v. Dallas Morning

News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex. 2000); Williams v. Texas State Bd. of Orthotics & Prosthetics, 150

S.W.3d 563, 567 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.).
3

Howard has attempted to appeal only mattersfor which no interlocutory appeal lies.

Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over this attempted appeal and must dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 7, 2006
#### Helma Victor, Respondent, v. Fiji Court, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion by appellant Fiji Court, Inc., to stay all proceedings under judgment of foreclosure and sale, pending appeal from order denying its motion to vacate said judgment. Motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 1703.3 General. ( a ) No ODNI employee shall respond to a demand for ODNI information or material without prior authorization as set forth in this part.
( b ) This part is intended only to provide procedures for responding to demands for production of documents or information, and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the United States.
#### § 1602.19 Numbers.

Cardinal numbers may be expressed by Arabic or Roman symbols.
#### BROOKS et al., Appellants, v. GLENS FALLS INS. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1903.)

Action by Warren H. Brooks and another against the Glens Falls Insurance Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

ADAMS, P. J., not voting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-30-1999
<CASH>                                         $93,697
<SECURITIES>                                   $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  $6,129,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                   $0
<INVENTORY>                                    $22,097,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $30,020,368
<PP&E>                                         $63,476,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                 $27,848,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 $69,196,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $17,809,596
<BONDS>                                        $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          $0
<PREFERRED>                                    $0
<COMMON>                                       $392,732
<OTHER-SE>                                     $14,136,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   $69,196,404
<SALES>                                        $88,543,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               $88,543,266
<CGS>                                          $53,683,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  $53,683,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               $2,875,038
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $1,062,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                $871,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                   $28,337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            $871,364
<DISCONTINUED>                                 $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                $0
<CHANGES>                                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $843,027
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.04




</TABLE>
#### Ellen Portanova, Respondent, v Angelo Kantlis et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[833 NYS2d 652]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Angelo Kantlis and Georgia Kantlis appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an *732order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated September 8, 2006, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property of another depends on the peculiar circumstances of each case and presents a question of fact for the jury. However, trivial defects are not actionable. In determining whether a defect is trivial, a court must examine all of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect, along with the time, place, and circumstances of the injury *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Mishaan v Tobias,*32 AD3d 1000 [2006]; *Herring v Lefrak Org.,*32 AD3d 900 [2006]).

Here, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the alleged sidewalk defect was too trivial to be actionable. They submitted conflicting evidence regarding the height of the alleged defect. The photographs submitted, together with the other evidence regarding the circumstances of the accident, raise questions of fact as to whether the alleged defect was too trivial to be actionable, and whether it constituted a trap, snare, or nuisance *(see Mishaan v Tobias, supra; Maxson v Brentwood Union Free School Dist.,*31 AD3d 506 [2006]; *Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie,*283 AD2d 598 [2001]; *Tesak v Marine Midland Bank,*254 AD2d 717 [1998]). Spolzino, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 63]]

Public Law 115-122
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate a mountain peak in the State of Montana as ``Alex Diekmann 
              Peak''. <<NOTE: Jan. 31, 2018 -  [S. 117]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Alex Diekmann 
Peak Designation Act of 2017.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act of 
2017''.
SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ALEX DIEKMANN PEAK, MONTANA.

    (a) In General.--The unnamed 9,765-foot peak located 2.2 miles west-
northwest of Finger Mountain on the western boundary of the Lee Metcalf 
Wilderness, Montana (UTM coordinates Zone 12, 457966 E., 4982589 N.), 
shall be known and designated as ``Alex Diekmann Peak''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
record, or other paper of the United States to the peak described in 
subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to ``Alex Diekmann 
Peak''.

    Approved January 31, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 117:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-516 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 115-94 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    Dec. 20, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Jan. 16, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
Clinical Guide > Resources and References > ARV Reference Tables

# Antiretroviral Reference Tables

January 2011

### Chapter Contents

      - ReferencesTables from the DHHS Adult and Adolescent Antiretroviral GuidelinesTables from the DHHS Adult and Adolescent Antiretroviral GuidelinesNumberTitleAll Tables Table 1.Outline of the Guidelines Development ProcessTable 2.Rating Scheme for RecommendationsTable 3.Laboratory Monitoring Schedule for Patients Prior to and After Initiation of Antiretroviral TherapyTable 4.Recommendations for Using Drug-Resistance AssaysTable 5a.Preferred and Alternative Antiretroviral Regimens for Antiretroviral Therapy-Naive PatientsTable 5b.Acceptable Antiretroviral Regimens for Treatment-Naive PatientsTable 6.Advantages and Disadvantages of Antiretroviral Components Recommended as Initial Antiretroviral TherapyTable 7.Antiretroviral Components Not Recommended as Initial TherapyTable 8.Antiretroviral Regimens or Components That Should Not Be Offered At Any TimeTable 9a.Trough Concentrations of Antiretroviral Drugs for Patients Who Have Drug-Susceptible VirusTable 9b.Trough Concentrations of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment-Experienced Patients with Virologic FailureTable 10.Identifying, Diagnosing, and Managing Acute HIV-1 InfectionTable 11.Drug Interactions between Antiretroviral Agents and Drugs Used to Treat Opioid AddictionTable 12.Strategies to Improve Adherence to Antiretroviral TherapyTable 13.Antiretroviral Therapy-Associated Common and/or Severe Adverse EffectsTable 14.Drugs That Should Not Be Used with PI, NNRTI, or CCR5 AntagonistTable 15a.Drug Interactions between PIs and Other DrugsTable 15b.Drug Interactions between NNRTIs and Other DrugsTable 15c.Drug Interactions between NRTIs and Other Drugs (Including ARV Agents)Table 15d.Drug Interactions between CCR5 Antagonist and Other DrugsTable 15e.Drug Interactions between Integrase Inhibitor and Other DrugsTable 16a.Interactions among PIsTable 16b.Interactions between NNRTIs, MVC, RAL, and PIsAppendix BTable 1.Characteristics of Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs)Table 2.Characteristics of Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NNRTIs)Table 3.Characteristics of Protease Inhibitors (PIs)Table 4.Characteristics of Integrase InhibitorTable 5.Characteristics of Fusion InhibitorTable 6.Characteristics of CCR5 AntagonistTable 7.Antiretroviral Dosing Recommendations in Patients with Renal or Hepatic InsufficiencyReferences- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents . January 10, 2011.
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 DynCorp (the "Company") on Form
10-Q as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Patrick C.  FitzPatrick,  as Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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
          for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

     This  certificate is being made for the exclusive  purpose of compliance by
the Chief Financial  Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
pf the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be disclosed,  distributed or used
by any person of for any reason other than as specifically required by law.



date November 14, 2002                      /s/ Patrick C. FitzPatrick
                                            --------------------------
                                            Patrick C. FitzPatrick
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
#### STOUTENBURGH, Respondent, v. BUSH CO., Limited, Appellant (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by Arthur T. Stoutenburgh, as temporary receiver, etc., against Bush Company, Limited. (Actions Nos. 1 and 2).

PER CURIAM.

This is a renewal of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The original application was opposed and denied. No papers are presented to us upon this application, except the notice of motion and the admission of service by the attorney for the respondent. These papers are manifestly insufficient, and the motion is denied, with $10 costs.
#### TYNDALL, Respondent, v. VAN AUKEN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Charles H. Tyndall against Edward L. Van Auken, as administrator, etc. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, by default, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Walter S. Forsyth.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with $10 motion costs.
# C_2009032EN.01002401.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 — Nardone v Commission

(Case T-57/99) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Occupational disease - Exposure to asbestos and other substances)

(2009/C 32/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Albert Nardone (Piétrain, Belgium) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, then by L. Levi)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, agent, and J. L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the wrongful conduct of the Commission in exposing the applicant to an atmosphere filled with dust and contaminated by asbestos.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | orders the Commission to pay to Mr Albert Nardone damages of EUR 66 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

orders the Commission to pay to Mr Albert Nardone damages of EUR 66 000;

| 2. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.

1

---