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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 12 

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. NUNN of Iowa submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 12 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall 

3 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three4 fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 

5 provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 

6 by a rollcall vote. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United 

8 States held by the public shall not be increased, unless 

9 three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall pro10 vide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. 

11 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President 

12 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the 

13 United States Government for that fiscal year in which 

14 total outlays do not exceed total receipts. 

15 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become 

16 law unless approved by a majority of the whole number 

17 of each House by a rollcall vote. 

18 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions 

19 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration 

20 of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be 

21 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is 

22 engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and 

23 serious military threat to national security and is so de24 clared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the 

25 whole number of each House, which becomes law. Any 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HJ 12 IH 

1 such waiver must identify and be limited to the specific 

2 excess or increase for that fiscal year made necessary by 

3 the identified military conflict. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and imple5 ment this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely 

6 on estimates of outlays and receipts. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts 

8 of the United States Government except those derived 

9 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of 

10 the United States Government except for those for repay11 ment of debt principal. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning 

13 with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2017168EN.01000201.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

of 7 March 2017

on official holidays and judicial vacations

(2017/C 168/02)

THE COURT,

having regard to Article 24(2), (4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure,

whereas it is necessary, in accordance with that provision, to establish the list of official holidays and to set the dates of the judicial vacations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 1

The list of official holidays within the meaning of Article 24(4) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure is established as follows:

| — | New Year’s Day, |
| --- | --- |

—

New Year’s Day,

| — | Easter Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter Monday,

| — | 1 May, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 May,

| — | Ascension, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ascension,

| — | Whit Monday, |
| --- | --- |

—

Whit Monday,

| — | 23 June, |
| --- | --- |

—

23 June,

| — | 15 August, |
| --- | --- |

—

15 August,

| — | 1 November, |
| --- | --- |

—

1 November,

| — | 25 December, |
| --- | --- |

—

25 December,

| — | 26 December. |
| --- | --- |

—

26 December.

Article 2

Article 2

For the period from 1 November 2017 to 31 October 2018, the dates of the judicial vacations within the meaning of Article 24(2) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure are as follows:

| — | Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Christmas 2017: from Monday 18 December 2017 to Sunday 7 January 2018 inclusive,

| — | Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive, |
| --- | --- |

—

Easter 2018: from Monday 26 March 2018 to Sunday 8 April 2018 inclusive,

| — | Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Summer 2018: from Monday 16 July 2018 to Friday 31 August 2018 inclusive.

Article 3

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Luxembourg, 7 March 2017.

A. CALOT ESCOBAR

Registrar

K. LENAERTS

President

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5224-5225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Multisite clinical trial evaluation for interventions in 
older individuals.
    Date: February 26, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maurizio Grimaldi, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9374, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#204752494d414c44494d12604d41494c0e4e49480e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6b1a4bfbbb7bab2bfbbe496bbb7bfbaf8b8bfbef8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 5225]]


    Dated: January 12, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00980 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto LUEVANOS-OVIEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-51574

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Roberto Luevanos-Oviedo raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, *458625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The' Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Subject: Meeting with the Revere Smelting and Refining (RSR) Corporation 

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 

Date: December 20, 2010 

Participants: Chuck French, EPA 

Nathan Topham, EPA 

Mia South, EPA 

Homer Hine, RSR 

Michael Buckantz, RSR 

Christopher Bryant, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. 

Mike Burr, ERG 

Donna Lazzari, ERG 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with representatives of the Revere 

Smelting and Refining (RSR) Corporation. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 

control technologies implemented at three facilities owned by RSR and also to discuss the 

ongoing Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for the secondary lead smelting source category. 

A brief summary of the key points is outlined below. 

• RSR informed EPA that two of their facilities in Indiana and New York have 

plans to install a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP). 

• RSR explained the major fugitive emissions control practices employed at their 

facility to EPA. These include total negative pressure enclosures, ambient lead 

monitoring, and installation of the WESP and an automatic rooftop sprinkler 

system at the City of Industry facility. RSR claims that total enclosures are the 

best and most important fugitive control practice. 

• EPA asked RSR the motivation behind installing a regenerative thermal oxidizer 

(RTO) at their City of Industry facility. RSR explained that the RTO was 

installed in response to odor complaints from RSR’s neighbors and that RSR was 

not in danger of exceeding the total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions limits in the 

NESHAP. 

• RSR explained that all of their facilities implement “Gore on Gore” bags, which 

they claim to be the most efficient for primary loads. RSR also explained that 

they never repair bags once a problem is detected, they replace them. 

• RSR discussed their plans to replace the refinery baghouse at the City of Industry 

facility.
FY 2012 Grantees

Title III, Part A Strengthening Institutions Program

PR Number Title III Part A Grantee State FY 2012 

Award 

P031A120100 San Francisco State University CA $394,360 

P031A120020 Valencia College - West Campus FL $375,361 

P031A120090 Saint Joseph's College IN $399,997 

P031A120026 Somerset Community College KY $383,561 

P031A120011 Bay Path College MA $399,957 

P031A120079 Central Carolina Community College NC $408,747 

P031A120122 The University of North Carolina at Greensboro NC $398,586 

P031A120097 Williston State College ND $399,900 

P031A120024 Orange County Community College (SUNY Orange) NY $392,669 

P031A120196 Monroe Community College NY $400,000 

P031A120013 Lehigh Carbon Community College PA $401,074 

P031A120187 Community College of Allegheny County PA $311,314 

P031A120009 Renton Technical College WA $521,856 

P031A120157 Everett Community College WA $255,333 

P031A120117 Fairmont State University WV $399,117 

Total $5,841,832 

[revised 11/28/2012]
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-04179 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Sarlai, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed November 8, 1978, upon a conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, on his plea of guilty, the sentence being a jail term of one year. Sentence affirmed. No opinion. Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Shapiro, J.,

dissents and votes to modify the sentence by reducing it to a period of probation, with Criminal Term to fix the period and conditions thereof, with the following memorandum: The defendant, a 56-year-old married man, has never previously been in trouble with the law. He has already been incarcerated for more than four months. I think justice would be better served if he were placed on supervisory probation for a lengthy period than if he were compelled to serve the remainder of his one-year sentence and then be entirely free of any supervision. In addition, I note that in sentencing the defendant, the court said "The little girl’s family wants this man sent to jail”. One can understand the feelings of the child’s parents, but the court’s responsibility was not to take the easy way out by placating them, but to do justice under the facts.
Exhibit
32.3
 
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
 UNION
ELECTRIC COMPANY
 (required
by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)
 
 
 In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005 of Union Electric Company (the “Company”) as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
Gary L. Rainwater, chief executive officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
May 10, 2005
 ****By:
    /s/ Gary L.
    RainwaterGary
      L. RainwaterChairman, President andChief
      Executive Officer(Principal Executive
Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-31077 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERENCE BROWN, also known as Terance G. Brown,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-39-ALL-C

_________________________________________________________________ July 13, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terence Brow n has appealed the sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty plea conviction for unlawful

possession of a firearm.

Brown asserts that the upward departure was improperly based

on his arrest record and that the district court improperly

considered prior convictions that were more than fifteen years old.

See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). A district court’s decision to depart2

from the sentencing guidelines is generally reviewed for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Ashburn , 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc).

In its reasons for judgment, the district court made it clear

that it looked not at the mere fact of prior arrests, but, rather,

that it looked to the violent nature and frequency of Brown’s prior

criminal conduct. In determining whether an upward departure is

warranted, a district court may consi der older prior convictions

whose sentences are evidence of simila r, or serious dissimilar,

crimina l conduct. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.8); s ee also

United States v. Harrington

, 114 F.3d 517, 520 (5th Cir. 1997);

United States v. Pennington

, 9 F.3d 1116, 1118 (5th Cir. 1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering

Brown’s older prior convictions and the violent nature of Brown’s

prior criminal conduct in deciding to depart upward from the

sentencing guideline.

Brown also asserts that the district court erred in upwardly

departing from the applicable sentencing guideline range because it

did not ex pressly state that it had considered intermediate

criminal category histories. Because Brown failed to raise this

argument below, it is reviewed for plain error. S ee United States

v. Alford , 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir. 1998).3

The district court based its upward departure on the grounds

that Brown’s criminal history category did not adequately reflect

the seriousness or violent nature of Brown’s past criminal conduct.

The district court’s reason s for departure were acceptable and

adequately explained. S ee U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; U nited States v.

Chappell

, 6 F.3d 1095, 1102 (5th Cir. 1993); A shburn

, 38 F.3d at

809.

In the light of the foregoing, the district court did not err

in upwardly departing from the applicable guideline range.

Ashburn , 38 F.3d at 807. The judgment of the district court is

A F F I R M E D.
#### In the Matter of Jesse Zaslav, an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement to the Bar granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arthur R. L. Pryor, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel on appeal from order denying his motion for transcript of the trial minutes. Motion denied; the order is not appealable (Code Grim. Pro., § 517). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# C_2019065EN.01000101.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 65/01)

Last publication

OJ C 54, 11.2.2019

Past publications

OJ C 44, 4.2.2019

OJ C 35, 28.1.2019

OJ C 25, 21.1.2019

OJ C 16, 14.1.2019

OJ C 4, 7.1.2019

OJ C 455, 17.12.2018

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Allen Temple, Appellant.

Order denying application in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*affirmed. The form of the court’s statement — that defendant was entitled to a lawyer of his own choice — -was as explicit as that approved in *People*v. *Fink*(8 A D 2d 859, cert. den. 361 U. S. 920). Further, defendant was asked if the court’s statement of his rights was “ clear ” and, again, whether he understood his “ right to a lawyer ”, and to each question he replied, “Yes, sir.” Finally, the record compiled upon the hearing afforded defendant is sufficient to establish a competent and intelligent waiver. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
# C_2017212EN.01002101.xml

| 1.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/21

---

Call for applications 2017

for the ‘Altiero Spinelli Prize for Outreach: Spreading Knowledge about Europe’

(2017/C 212/09)

The Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture has launched a call for applications for a European Union ‘Altiero Spinelli Prize for Outreach: Spreading Knowledge about Europe’.

The aim of the call is to reward outstanding contributions that enhance citizens' understanding of the EU, broaden the ownership of the European project, inspire citizens and build trust in the EU.

There will be six first prizes of EUR 50 000, six second prizes of EUR 30 000 and 10 third prizes of EUR 17 000.

Registration of intention to apply is compulsory by 16 August 2017.

16 August 2017

The deadline for applications is 2 October 2017.

2 October 2017

All relevant information and application forms are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/education/calls/altiero-spinelli-prize-contest-2017_en

---
# C_2018455EN.01000501.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/5

---

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2018/C 455/11)

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2018, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

Mr Rosas

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr Juhász

Ms Rossi

Mr Ilešič

Mr Piçarra

Mr Malenovský

Mr Xuereb

Mr Levits

Mr Lycourgos

Mr Bay Larsen

Ms Jürimäe

Mr von Danwitz

Mr Biltgen

Ms Toader

Mr Rodin

Mr Safjan

Mr Vajda

Mr Šváby

Mr Fernlund

Ms Berger

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2018, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber

Mr Rosas

Mr Safjan

Mr Bay Larsen

Ms Toader

Second Chamber

Mr Levits

Mr Xuereb

Mr von Danwitz

Mr Vajda

Ms Berger

Third Chamber

Mr Malenovský

Ms Rossi

Mr Fernlund

Mr Biltgen

Fourth Chamber

Mr Šváby

Mr Piçarra

Mr Rodin

Ms Jürimäe

Fifth Chamber

Mr Juhász

Mr Jarukaitis

Mr Ilešič

Mr Lycourgos

At its General Meeting on 11 October 2018, the Court drew up the list for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Sixth Chamber

Mr Rosas

Mr Bay Larsen

Mr Safjan

Seventh Chamber

Mr Levits

Ms Berger

Mr Vajda

Mr Xuereb

Eighth Chamber

Mr Malenovský

Mr Fernlund

Ms Rossi

Ninth Chamber

Mr Šváby

Mr Rodin

Mr Piçarra

Tenth Chamber

Mr Juhász

Mr Ilešič

Mr Jarukaitis

---