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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 210 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 210

                 To correct the engrossment of S. 722.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2017

Mr. Corker submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                 To correct the engrossment of S. 722.

    Resolved, That in the engrossment of S. 722, an Act to provide 
congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' 
aggression, the Secretary of the Senate shall--
            (1) in section 216(c)--
                    (A) strike paragraph (4) and insert the following:
            ``(4) Floor consideration in house of representatives.--If 
        a committee of the House of Representatives to which a joint 
        resolution of approval or joint resolution of disapproval has 
        been referred has not reported the joint resolution within 10 
        calendar days after the date of referral, that committee shall 
        be discharged from further consideration of the joint 
        resolution.'';
                    (B) in paragraph (5)(A)--
                            (i) in clause (i), strike ``section 216 A3 
                        that is described as'' and insert ``subsection 
                        (a)(3)(A) that relates to''; and
                            (ii) in clause (ii), strike ``section 216 
                        A3 that is described as'' and insert 
                        ``subsection (a)(3)(B) that relates to''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (7)(A), strike ``but applicable'' 
                and all that follows through ``disapproval,''; and
            (2) in section 236, strike subsection (b) and insert the 
        following:
    ``(b) Exception Relating to Importation of Goods.--No provision 
affecting sanctions or licensing actions under this title or an 
amendment made by this title shall apply to any portion of a sanction 
or licensing action that affects the importation of goods.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### 225.7303-3 Government-to-government agreements.

If a government-to-government agreement between the United States and a foreign government for the sale, coproduction, or cooperative logistic support of a specifically defined weapon system, major end item, or support item, contains language in conflict with the provisions of this section, the language of the government-to-government agreement prevails.
216.307 Contract clauses. ( a ) As required by section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), use the clause at 252.216-7009, Allowability of Costs Incurred in Connection With a Whistleblower Proceeding— ( 1 ) In task orders entered pursuant to contracts awarded before September 30, 2013, that include the clause at FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment; and
( 2 ) In contracts awarded before September 30, 2013, that—
( i ) Include the clause at FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment; and
( ii ) Are modified to include the clause at DFARS 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights, dated September 2013 or later.
[78 FR 59861, Sept. 30, 2013]
#### 209.571-0 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements section 207 of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-23).

[75 FR 81913, Dec. 29, 2010]
#### 242.7501 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Acceptable accounting system,* and *accounting system* are defined in the clause at 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration.

*Significant deficiency* is defined in the clause at 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Joshua Wiley Mitchell, Appellant

No. 06-18-00014-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27395). Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Moseley* participating. 

*Justice Moseley, Retired, Sitting by 

Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the aggravated assault judgment to reflect “22.02 & 

12.42 Penal Code” as the “Statute for Offense,” and we modify the family violence assault 

judgment to reflect “22.01 & 12.42 Penal Code” as the “Statute for Offense.” As modified, the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Joshua Wiley Mitchell, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 14, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### 211.272-211.273 [Reserved]
#### 252.209-7004 Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

As prescribed in 209.409, use the following clause:

# Subcontracting With Firms That Are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Country That Is a State Sponsor of Terrorism (MAY 2019)

(a) Unless the Government determines that there is a compelling reason to do so, the Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract in excess of the threshold specified in Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.405-2(b) on the date of subcontract award with a firm, or a subsidiary of a firm, that is identified in the Exclusions section of the System for Award Management System (SAM Exclusions) as being ineligible for the award of Defense contracts or subcontracts because it is owned or controlled by the government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism.

(b) A corporate officer or a designee of the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer, in writing, before entering into a subcontract with a party that is identified, in SAM Exclusions, as being ineligible for the award of Defense contracts or subcontracts because it is owned or controlled by the government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism. The notice must include the name of the proposed subcontractor and the compelling reason(s) for doing business with the subcontractor notwithstanding its inclusion in SAM Exclusions.

(End of clause)

[79 FR 73490, Dec. 11, 2014, as amended at 80 FR 36905, June 26, 2015; 84 FR 25187, May 31, 2019]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James D’Angelo, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 29, 1977, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At the time of his arrest in connection with an attempted truck hijacking defendant indicated to the arresting officer that he wanted to speak with his attorney. The arresting officer then read defendant his *Miranda*rights. Defendant was eventually transported to the police precinct where he spoke to another police officer, who repeated the *Miranda*warnings and questioned him. At that point, defendant confessed to the crime. As the District Attorney concedes, it was error for the trial court to admit defendant’s tainted confession at trial (see *People v Buxton,*44 NY2d 33; *People v Clark,*45 NY2d 432). We cannot agree with the District Attorney’s contention that the error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (see *People v Almestica,*42 NY2d 222). The confession was the most damaging piece of evidence admitted against defendant at trial (cf. *People v Jones,*61 AD2d 264). Although the other evidence of his guilt was persuasive, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in admitting his statement into evidence did not contribute to his conviction *(People v Jones, supra).*Defendant’s other contention regarding the refusal to charge attempted grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, and attempted petty larceny, is without merit. No reasonable view of the evidence, on this record, would warrant such a charge. O’Connor, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-5404) pertaining to the 1983 Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan and in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-06091) pertaining to the 1996
Executive Stock Option Plan of ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
March 5, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ALPNET,
Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1998.



                                                \s\ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Salt Lake City, Utah
March 25, 1999
New FY 2024 GEAR UP State and Partnership Competitions Notices Inviting Applications have published. Applications due May 7, 2024.  Click here for the application.

 Dear Project Director Letter - ED HHS Collaboration in Support of Disconnected Youth - March 16, 2023

GEAR UP match waiver flexibilities letter

Federal Register GEAR UP Match Waiver Information Collection Notice.	

**Program Office:**Student Service

**CFDA Number:** 84.334A; 84.334S**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants**Also Known As:** GEAR UP

Program Description

This discretionary grant program is designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. GEAR UP provides six-year or seven years grants to states and partnerships to provide services at high-poverty middle and high schools. GEAR UP grantees serve an entire cohort of students beginning no later than the seventh grade and follow the cohort through high school. GEAR UP funds are also used to provide college scholarships to low-income students.

Types of Projects

GEAR UP offers state and partnership grants. State grants are competitive six-year matching grants that mustinclude both an early intervention component designed to increase college attendance and success and raise theexpectations of low-income students and a scholarship component. Partnership grants are competitive six-yearmatching grants that must support an early intervention component and may support a scholarship componentdesigned to increase college attendance and success and raise the expectations of low-income students.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the
Trust on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, I, John
I. Bradshaw, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Treasurer of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

        1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
            13(a)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 Trust.



                                        /S/John I. Bradshaw, Jr.
                                        _________________________________
                               		Chief Executive Officer, President
                                        and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE
CONSOLDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             413
<SECURITIES>                                        32
<RECEIVABLES>                                      598
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                        419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,570
<PP&E>                                           9,680<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,161
<BONDS>                                          2,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,440
<SALES>                                          2,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,576
<CGS>                                            2,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     93
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 81
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        81
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84
<FN>
<F1>Includes timber and timberlands.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

HANIYYAH N. ALI & R.W.A., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 3791

)

U.S. GOVERNMENT NSA OVERSIGHT/ )

AT&T, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

HaNiyyah Ali (“Ali”) has filed a self-prepared document that

she captions as “Complaint,” coupled with Clerk’s-Office-supplied

forms of In Forma Pauperis Application (“Application”) and Motion

for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”). But any objective

consideration of the Complaint shows that it is totally lacking

in the “plausibility” called for by the Supreme Court’s teaching

in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562-63 (2007) and

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), just as her modest prayer

for relief in the amount of $199 million is equally implausible.

That being so, this Court might otherwise swiftly dismiss

both the Complaint and this action sua sponte on the premise that

Ali would be disinclined to try to muster up the $350 filing fee,

only to face dismissal on the same ground of her failure to

advance an intelligible and plausible claim. But because this

Court views any such threshold dismissal upon initial screening

as applicable only to lawsuits by prisoners (see 28 U.S.C.

§1915A), all that will be done at this point is to deny both the
Application (it will be remembered that in forma pauperis status

may be denied on grounds of legal frivolousness) and the Motion. 

If however no filing fee is paid on or before June 25, 2012,

dismissal of this action will be ordered at that time.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 23, 2012

2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

November 10, 2010
227.7203-9 Copyright. ( a ) *Copyright license.* ( 1 ) The clause at 252.227-7014, Rights in Other Than Commercial Computer Software and Other Than Commercial Computer Software Documentation, requires a contractor to grant, or obtain for the Government license rights which permit the Government to reproduce the software or documentation, distribute copies, perform or display the software or documentation and, through the right to modify data, prepare derivative works. The extent to which the Government, and others acting on its behalf, may exercise these rights varies for each of the standard data rights licenses obtained under the clause. When non-standard license rights in computer software or computer software documentation will be negotiated, negotiate the extent of the copyright license concurrent with negotiations for the data rights license. Do not negotiate copyright licenses for computer software that provide less rights than the standard restricted rights in computer software license. For computer software documentation, do not negotiate a copyright license that provides less rights than the standard limited rights in technical data license.
( 2 ) The clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data— Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services, does not permit a contractor to incorporate a third party's copyrighted software into a deliverable software item unless the contractor has obtained an appropriate license for the Government and, when applicable, others acting on the Government's behalf, or has obtained the contracting officer's written approval to do so. Grant approval to use third party copyrighted software in which the Government will not receive a copyright license only when the Government's requirements cannot be satisfied without the third party material or when the use of the third party material will result in cost savings to the Government which outweigh the lack of a copyright license.
( b ) *Copyright considerations—special works.* See 227.7205 for copyright considerations when acquiring special works.
[60 FR 33482, June 28, 1995, as amended at 88 FR 6586, Jan. 31, 2023]
M. P. No. 74-331.

#### Herbert S. Whitman *v.*S. Douglas Mott *et al.*

*Sheffield & Harvey, Ray H. Durfee,*for petitioner. *Corcoran, Peckham & Hayes, William W. Corcoran,*for respondents.

Petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto is granted. Matter is assigned to March 7, 1975 for oral argument. Briefs for the petitioner shall be filed no later than February 20, 1975, and briefs for the respondent shall be filed no later than March 3, 1975.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CASCADE
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,843
<INVENTORY>                                     37,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,483
<PP&E>                                         178,172
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,288
<BONDS>                                         88,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,374
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,784
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,341
<SALES>                                        254,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,936
<CGS>                                          163,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  230,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   332
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,653
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,567
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PHYLLIS MITCHELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 3471

)

FAIRMONT PINES APTS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Phyllis Mitchell (“Mitchell”) has filed a self-prepared

Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights, employing the

form provided by the Clerk’s Office for use by pro se litigants,

in which Mitchell names Fairmont Pines Apartments, HUD and the

Davenport, Iowa Police as defendants. This Court expresses no

views as to the substance of Mitchell’s Complaint, because she is

clearly mistaken in filing suit in this judicial district in the

first place.

As Mitchell’s allegations make plain, the conduct about

which she complains took place in Iowa, with no connection at all

to the Northern District of Illinois. Moreover, because

Mitchell’s filing lists her residence as located in Moline,

Illinois, her home is in the Central rather than the Northern

District of Illinois, so that no basis exists for her suing here

on that score as well.

Accordingly this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

This dismissal renders moot her simultaneously filed In Forma
Pauperis Application and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, so

that her mistakes have not imposed any out-of-pocket costs on

her.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 14, 2012

2