alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5822. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title II, §2816, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4602

Section, Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1451, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3607; Pub. L. 101–508, title I, §1204(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–11; Pub. L. 102–237, title II, §201(a), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1846, related to Integrated Farm Management Program Option to assist producers of agricultural commodities in adopting integrated, multiyear, site-specific farm management plans.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00186

- CR

RICHARD LEE PERCIVILL, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 48,443

- B

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Lee Percivill, Jr.

, was indicted in two separate indictments for family violence

assault. The two cases were tried together, and he entered a plea of guilty to both indictments and

a plea of true to each indictment ’ s enhancement allegation of having a prior conviction for f amily

violence assault. The trial court found him guilty and

, after a hearing on punishment, sentenced

him to five years in prison for each of the two offenses

, with the sentences to run concurrently.

I n this appeal from his second conviction for family violence assault, Percivill argues that

he was improperly assessed $25.00 for a time payment fee. 1

For the reasons stated in our opinion of this date in cause number 06

- 19

- 00185

- CR, we

find that ninety percent of the time payment fee is unconstitu tional and modify the time payment

fee to assess only $2.50.

As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 19, 2020

Date Decided: April 9 , 2020

Do Not Publish

1 The State does not oppose Percivill’s arguments on appeal.
### §5301. Congressional statement of purposes

The purposes of this chapter are to—

(1) make more effective use of Federal and State expenditures for nutrition monitoring, and enhance the performance and benefits of current Federal nutrition monitoring and related research activities;

(2) establish and facilitate the timely implementation of a coordinated National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program, and thereby provide a scientific basis for the maintenance and improvement of the nutritional status of the people of the United States and the nutritional quality (including, but not limited to, nutritive and nonnutritive content) of food consumed in the United States;

(3) establish and implement a comprehensive plan for the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program to assess, on a continuing basis, the dietary and nutritional status of the people of the United States and the trends with respect to such status, the state of the art with respect to nutrition monitoring and related research, future monitoring and related research priorities, and the relevant policy implications;

(4) establish and improve the quality of national nutritional and health status data and related data bases and networks, and stimulate research necessary to develop uniform indicators, standards, methodologies, technologies, and procedures for nutrition monitoring;

(5) establish a central Federal focus for the coordination, management, and direction of Federal nutrition monitoring activities;

(6) establish mechanisms for addressing the nutrition monitoring needs of Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, scientific and engineering communities, health care professionals, and the public in support of the foregoing purposes; and

(7) provide for the conduct of such scientific research and development as may be necessary or appropriate in support of such purposes.

(Pub. L. 101–445, §2, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1034.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 101–445, §1, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1034, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990'."
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.M.M. and * From the 29 th District Court

J.E.T., children, of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C49180

.

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 176

- C V * February 3 , 20 2 2

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accord ance wit h this court’s opinion, we

affirm the order of the trial court.
#### Joan Taig, by Her Guardian ad Litem Henry Taig, et al., Appellants, *v.*State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 33571.)

Third Department,

July 15, 1963.

■ *Bhatzkin $ Cooper (Jerome Cooper*of counsel), for appellants.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Harold J. Hughes, Jr.,*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondent.

Bergan, P. J.

On October 7, 1955 the claimant Joan Taig, then 15 years old, was assaulted by Louis Sensale, then aged 13, who had been a mental patient in a State hospital and who on June 29, 1955 had been discharged from further treatment. The claim against the State is based on the theory that Sensale was mentally ill and dangerous when discharged and that he should have had further hospital care. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim.

The claim is supported by the testimony of a psychiatrist who expressed the opinion that Sensale suffered schizophrenia, paranoid type, and required further treatment at the time of his discharge.

The record shows that Sensale was admitted to Rockland State Hospital on July 30, 1953, remained there until June 2, 1954, and that he showed improvement in his condition. On the latter date he was released to convalescent or ambulant treatment at the Brooklyn After-Care Clinic, and he continued to improve for a period thereafter.

Claimant’s medical witness does not seem to disagree with the judgment of hospital medical authorities to release the patient to convalescent ambulant care in June, 1954 pr with the *183clinic authorities to continue him for some time thereafter in such care. His opinion was, however, that from February, 1955 to June, 1955 when the patient was discharged, there were indications in the medical record that he had retrogressed and that he should not have been discharged.

The decision to release the patient from the hospital and place him on convalescent status was a medical judgment and the decision to continue him on convalescent outpatient status after February, 1955 and to discharge him in June were also matters of professional medical judgment. Although another physician might disagree as to the form and period of treatment to be followed, a liability would not arise; nor would it arise if the professional judgment to discharge him was in fact erroneous. *(St. George*v. *State of New York,*283 App. Div. 245, affd. 308 N. Y. 681; *Warner*v. *Packer,*139 App. Div. 207; *Pike*v. *Honsinger,*155 N. Y. 201.)

The prediction of the future course of a mental illness is a professional judgment of high responsibility and in some instances it involves a measure of calculated risk. If a liability were imposed on the physician or the State each time the prediction of future course of mental disease was wrong, few releases would ever be made and the hope of recovery and rehabilitation of a vast number of patients would be impeded and frustrated. This is one of the medical and public risks which must be taken on balance, even though it may sometimes result in injury to the patient or others.

The judgment of the Court of Claims should be affirmed, without costs.

Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, J J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.
### §412. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 412 was transferred to section 476 of this title.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA H. ENRIQUEZ,

Appellant,

V.

GLORIA CALDERON AND SARA 

LOPEZ,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00095-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV1154)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1179 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1179

Expressing support for the designation of May 2024 as Motorcycle Safety 
                            Awareness Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Norcross, and 
 Mr. Van Orden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 2024 as Motorcycle Safety 
                            Awareness Month.

Whereas motorcycling is a great American tradition enjoyed by an estimated 30 
        million people annually, representing approximately 9 percent of the 
        population;
Whereas motorcycles are a valuable component of the transportation mix;
Whereas motorcycles are fuel-efficient and decrease congestion while having 
        little impact on our Nation's transportation infrastructure;
Whereas the motorcycling community promotes rider safety education, licensing, 
        and motorcycle awareness;
Whereas the motorcycling community is committed to decreasing motorcycle crashes 
        through training and safety education, personal responsibility, and 
        increased public awareness;
Whereas approximately 87 percent of motorcycles are operated on highways in 
        conjunction with other vehicles;
Whereas motorcyclist deaths occur more frequently than fatalities in passenger 
        vehicles;
Whereas motorcycle awareness is beneficial to all road users and will help 
        decrease motorcycle accidents; and
Whereas the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promotes Motorcycle 
        Safety Awareness Month to encourage riders to be properly licensed, 
        receive training, wear personal protective equipment, and to remind all 
        riders and motorists to always share the road: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of Motorcycle Safety Awareness 
        Month;
            (2) recognizes the contribution of motorcycles to the 
        transportation mix;
            (3) encourages motorcycle awareness by all road users;
            (4) recognizes that motorcyclists have a right to the road 
        and that all motorists should safely share the roadways;
            (5) encourages rider safety education, training, and proper 
        gear for safe motorcycle operation; and
            (6) supports the goals of Motorcycle Safety Awareness 
        Month.
                                 <all>
```
C2>

ssvnoisau

aaiaosaad

m

iyy

j

£ fe g g£ M= p Bjy @g

© 03 & (§LO M§

,*- —

uioer---,1c£

s

CO

V—

o

h ,_,

<;

H r^

i/j CO

p-l 1^

o in

H <"

e< X <

S 00

o 7? r^ f-i fN H 1 r/1

X

o

pa 3 O

u

oa

o

C\l

<N

Csf

00

i

en

LLI

a:

cog- -
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,372,293
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  437,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,820,514
<PP&E>                                         28,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,934,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,729,199
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       400,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,345,557)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,934,416
<SALES>                                        10,741,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,478,328
<CGS>                                          10,216,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,698,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,458,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               71,867
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,128,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   69,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,197,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,197,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)


</TABLE>
### §4310. Amendments to orders

The provisions of this chapter applicable to orders shall be applicable to amendments to orders.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XVII, §1711, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1354.)
### §§2009dd to 2009dd–7. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6601(a)(1)(H), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4776

Section 2009dd, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385A, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 402; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1183; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1944, related to purpose of subchapter.

Section 2009dd–1, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385B, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 402; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1183; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1945, related to definitions.

Section 2009dd–2, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385C, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 403; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1184; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1945; Pub. L. 113–188, title I, §101(e)(1), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2017, related to establishment and administration of Rural Collaborative Investment Program.

Section 2009dd–3, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385D, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 405; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1187; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1948; Pub. L. 113–188, title I, §101(e)(2), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2017, related to Regional Rural Investment Boards.

Section 2009dd–4, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385E, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 407; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1189; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1950, related to regional investment strategy grants.

Section 2009dd–5, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385F, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 407; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1190; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1951, related to regional innovation grants program.

Section 2009dd–6, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385G, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 408; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1193; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1955, related to rural endowment loans program.

Section 2009dd–7, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §385H, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VI, §6030, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 411; amended Pub. L. 110–234, title VI, §6028, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1194; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VI, §6028, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1955, authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rafael Santiago, Appellant, v Otisville Correctional Facility et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 831]—

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 23, 2005, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant, a correction officer, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits alleging that, on January 15, 2002, he fell and struck his head while conducting a search, causing him to sustain a head injury and related psychological conditions. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed. In concluding that claimant had not sustained a work accident, the Board determined that he had merely alleged an accident as *1110“an afterthought and a direct response to” the employer’s investigation regarding claimant’s illegal work activities on the date in question. Claimant now appeals.

The issue in this case, as framed by the Board’s decision, distills to whether claimant actually suffered an accident while at work or, instead, as the Board found, fabricated his claim in light of the investigation against him. Thus, contrary to claimant’s assertion, Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), which affords a presumption that an unwitnessed or unexplained workplace accident arose out of the injured person’s employment, has no bearing on this case as it cannot be utilized to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the first place *(see Matter of Fedor-Leo v Broome County Sheriff’s Dept.,*305 AD2d 760, 760 [2003]; *Matter of Strassberg v Hilton Hotel Corp.,*299 AD2d 667, 668 [2002]). That said, whether an accident occurred is a factual question for resolution by the Board, whose determination will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Fedor-Leo v Broome County Sheriff’s Dept., supra*at 760; *Matter of McCabe v Watertown Correctional Facility,*301 AD2d 766, 767 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 501 [2003]).

Here, the record demonstrates that claimant continued working after the events of January 15, 2002 and did not seek any medical attention until June 2002, following an unrelated May 2002 incident, and shortly after being served with a notice of discipline which recommended claimant’s termination for cause for his improper conduct with inmates on January 15, 2002. Moreover, claimant did not report his alleged accident and injuries until February 5, 2002, after he had been advised that he was being transferred from his job pending investigation of complaints from numerous inmates regarding his conduct on January 15, 2002. Acknowledging the Board’s authority to assess credibility and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence *(see Matter of Gross v BJ’s Wholesale Club,*29 AD3d 1051, 1052-1053 [2006]), we find that the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence in support of the Board’s decision and, accordingly, we affirm.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Vincent Pannone, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 5, 1961 and entered December 11, 1961, after a hearing, which dismissed the writ and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed. The same arguments which are presented by relator in this proceeding were presented by him to the Appellate Division of the First Department on the appeal from the judgment of conviction, and that court passed on the merits of such arguments *(People*v. *Pannone,*8 A D 2d 608). No reason appears why relator should have the remedy of habeas corpus in addition to the remedy of an appeal from the judgment of conviction (cf. *People ex rel. Kern*v. *Silberglitt,*4 N Y 2d 59, 62). This court should not be called upon to deal anew with the very questions already passed upon by an appellate court *(People ex rel. Baumgart*v. *Martin,*9 N Y 2d 351, cert, denied 368 U. S. 962; *People*v. *Walker,*16 A D 2d 706). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1009.204-70 Contractor publicity.

31 U.S.C. 333(a) prohibits the use of Treasury names, abbreviations, or symbols, in connection with, or as a part of, any advertisement, solicitation, business activity, or product, in a manner that may imply endorsement by Treasury. Bureaus shall insert a clause substantially the same as 1052.210-70 Contractor Publicity in all solicitations and contracts.
p.1 

OAR Box 1837 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

171) IV-C-11 

Docket Number: 

A-84-33 

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:11 PM Sheet 171 of 238 
P.2 

/ A \ A-M- M 

| tW7 UNITED STATES EN \ %v/ <--l l 

1^1^- / iSHINCTi IN w i« 

<< PflO ^ 

' 5 i 

AIR AND RADI M 

Honorable Dick Cheney 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Cheney: 

This is in response to your lette r of June 19, 1986, to Administrator 

Lee Thomas commenting on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

rulemaking regarding whether surface coal mines should be made subject to air 

quality new source review permitting under the Clean Air Act. In that lette r 

you indicate strong agreement with the Department of the Interior' s (DOI's) 

statement in support of the status quo with respect to the regulation of 

mines. 

We, too, are concerned with the potential costs of the proposed 

regulation. The EPA has prepared and made available for public comment a 

regulatory impact analysis of the subject proposal that shows considerably 

greater costs than benefits from the prevention of significant deterioration 

permitting of al l surface mines. However, thi s analysis does suggest some 

potential usefulness in regulating mines which would affect certain parklands 

(Class I and mandatory Class I I areas). The analysis addresses in detai l 

the type of Issues which you present 1n your letter. 

My staff 1n the Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards is carefully 

reviewing the DOI comments. Obviously, the key question is whether the 

protection of parklands from mine-produced pollution is relevant in thi s rulemaking. The EPA 1s analyzing the possibilit y that DOI 1s currently performing 

thi s function, thus obviating the need for further action by EPA. I wil l do 

everything I can to see that EPA's final action in this rulemaking is consistent 

with the sound consideration of costs and benefits and further that i t is not 

duplicative of existing DOI policies and procedures. 

Thank you for your interest in thi s rulemaking. Your comments have been 

added to the rulemaking docket. 

Sincerely, 

9 

J . Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

M » 3 1989
#### Board of Supervisors of the County of Monroe et al., Respondents, v. Sherlo Realty, Inc., Appellant.

Motion to prosecute appeal on typewritten record and transcript filed in Monroe County Clerk’s office denied.