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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 165 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 165

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
   Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in 
     Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
                             Assistance''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

  Mrs. Miller of Illinois (for herself, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Stefanik, Mrs. 
   Harshbarger, Mrs. Luna, Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Lesko, Mrs. McClain, Ms. 
 Letlow, Mrs. Hinson, Ms. Boebert, Ms. Hageman, Ms. Greene of Georgia, 
Ms. De La Cruz, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Banks, Mr. Allen, Mr. Cline, Mr. Posey, 
    Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Babin, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. 
  Burchett, Mr. Norman, Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Clyde, Mr. 
   Timmons, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Steube, Mr. Good of 
Virginia, Mr. Self, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Biggs, Mr. 
  Van Drew, Mr. Hern, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. 
   Bilirakis, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. 
Guest, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Moran, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Gosar, 
 Mr. McCormick, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. 
 Grothman, Mr. Owens, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Crane, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Bean of 
   Florida, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. LaLota, Mr. Stauber, Mr. 
    Ezell, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Hudson) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
   Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in 
     Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial 
                             Assistance''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance'' (89 Fed. Reg. 
33474; published April 29, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered April 25, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01390-CR

ERNESTO JENNINGS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-31021-W

ORDER

Appellant’s April 19, 2016 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is 

DENIED. 

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 134 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating 

to ‘‘Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, and Mr. 

BENTZ) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Labor relating to ‘‘Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Labor relating to ‘‘Improving Protections for 

5 Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 134 IH 

1 United States’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 33898 (April 29, 2024)), 

2 and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### 3001.101 Purpose.

The Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) establishes uniform acquisition policies and procedures, which implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
# C_2018435EN.01000401.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 435/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 435/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 November 2018

(2018/C 435/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1359 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4622 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89068 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3195 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1340 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7400 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,957 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 323,62 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2900 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6598 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,8753 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5565 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5116 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8851 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6556 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5581 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 274,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,6258 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8897 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4055 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 246,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7532 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,536 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,0734 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,348 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3843 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0910 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,0815 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1359

JPY

Japanese yen

128,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4622

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89068

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3195

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1340

ISK

Iceland króna

139,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7400

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,957

HUF

Hungarian forint

323,62

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2900

RON

Romanian leu

4,6598

TRY

Turkish lira

5,8753

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5565

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5116

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8851

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6556

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5581

KRW

South Korean won

1 274,04

ZAR

South African rand

15,6258

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8897

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4055

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 246,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7532

PHP

Philippine peso

59,536

RUB

Russian rouble

76,0734

THB

Thai baht

37,348

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3843

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0910

INR

Indian rupee

79,0815

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLUMBUS ALLEN, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, Appellee,ADAM CHRISTIANSON, SheriffCoroner; GINA LEGURIA, Policy Manager; WILLIAM DUNCAN, Cpt.; BRENDA SUAREZ, Lieutenant; RONALD LLOYD, Lieutenant; GREGG CLIFTON, Lieutenant; C. BLAKE, Sergeant; GALLES, Sergeant; ERNIE RADZA, Sergeant; V. L. TRUFFA, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. No. 11-15151 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00930-AWI-JLT
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 11, 2012 

# FILED
JUL 13 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 San Francisco, California Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Columbus Allen appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his pro se civil rights complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand. Allen’s amended complaint states a cl aim against prison dentist Dr. Cheung for constitutionally inadequate medical care. Allen alleges in his complaint that Dr. Cheung refused for months to treat A llen’s serious dental problem based on a series of “ephemeral and contradictory” reasons. Taking those allegations as true and drawing all inferences in Allen’s favor , Allen’s complaint establishes that Dr. Cheung purposefully delayed providing A llen necessary dental treatment and therefore acted with deliberate indiffere nce to Allen’s serious medical need. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t , 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989); Clement v. Gomez , 298 F.3d 898, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2002). The magistrate judge’s conclusion, as adopted in full by the district court, that delays in Allen’s treatment were “beyond Dr. Cheung’s control” misconstrued Allen’s a llegations and improperly assumed at the pleading stage that Dr. Cheung’s assertions about why he failed to treat Allen were true. See Silva v. Di Vittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011).3 The district court also erred in di smissing with prejudice the claims from Allen’s complaint that are unrelated to his claim for inadequate medical care against Dr. Cheung. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 expressly prohibits a district court from dismissing a plaintiff’s claims for the sole reason that the plaintiff erroneously joined those claims in a single action against different defendants. See Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc. , 329 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 1964). The district court here violated that rule by dismissing Allen’s remaining claims with prejudice simply because they were unrelated to his inadequate dental care claim and alleged against different defendants. On remand, the district court should instead remedy Allen’s misjoinder by severing any claims or defendants unrelated to Allen’s inadequate dental care claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. REVERSED and REMANDED.
# C_2016455EN.01000201.xml

| 6.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 December 2016

(2016/C 455/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0702 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4396 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84168 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8015 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0797 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,057 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,97 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5005 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5010 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,7794 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4391 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4240 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2997 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5105 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5230 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 254,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8125 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3662 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5356 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 375,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7608 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,188 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,1175 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,147 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7044 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0853 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,9495 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0702

JPY

Japanese yen

122,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4396

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84168

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8015

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0797

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,057

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,97

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5005

RON

Romanian leu

4,5010

TRY

Turkish lira

3,7794

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4391

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4240

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2997

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5105

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5230

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,48

ZAR

South African rand

14,8125

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3662

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5356

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 375,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7608

PHP

Philippine peso

53,188

RUB

Russian rouble

68,1175

THB

Thai baht

38,147

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7044

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0853

INR

Indian rupee

72,9495

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Carmen Carabott, Respondent, v. Otto May, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant May appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 1, 1962 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict, as directed recovery in plaintiff’s favqr against him. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts; action severed as against defendant May; and a new trial granted as between plaintiff and the said defendant, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Evidence is lacking to show that the control and use of the vehicle in question for the 10 days from the time of sale until the time of the accident was not such that would or could materially alter its condition. Moreover, the evidence concerning the actual happening of the accident does not preponderate in such a manner as to show that a defective brake was the causative factor. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 4, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 18 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 38119

________________ 

### Airam Bulte , Appellant,

vs. 

### Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Mark Blumstein , Judge. Schwed, Adams & Mc G inley, P.A. , and Paul M. Adams (Palm Beach Gardens); Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. , Bard D. Rockenbach and Nichole J. Segal (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A ., and Adrianna de la Cruz

- Muñoz , Michael A. Rosenberg and David Herrero (Plantation), for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ. GORDO, J.2 A iram Bulte (“Bulte”) appeals the final judgment entered against Dollar Tree Stores Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) pursuant to a jury verdict awarding Bulte $36,000 in damages for pas t and future medical expenses and pain and suffering. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). During jury selection, Bulte sought to use her peremptory strike as to

a Hispanic woman juror . Dollar Tree sought a Melbourne challenge and asked for a race

- neutral and gender

- neutral reason

. The trial court conducted a Melbourne analysis and concluded the grounds articulated by Bulte were not genuine and disallowed the use of the peremptory as to that juror

. “Where a perempto ry strike is alleged to have been exercised in a racially discriminatory manner, we review a trial court’s ruling ‘to determine whether it was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.’” West v. State , 168 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Cook v. State , 104 So. 3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Relevant to this appeal is step three of a Melbourne analysis which provides in part : “ The court’s focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation [for the preemptory strike] but rather its genuineness

. ” Melbourne v. State , 679 So. 2d 759, 76 4 (Fla. 1996) (emphasis added)

.3 We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit clear

error by concluding the proffered reason was not genuine

. See Dabbs v. State , 330 So. 3d 50, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Because the trial court conducted a proper genuineness inquiry, we must give appropriate deference to its determination.”); Hialeah Hosp., Inc . v. Hayes

- Boursiquot , 316 So. 3d 754, 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (affirming and finding the trial court properly exercised its discretion in sustaining a Melbourne challenge as “there is sufficient record evidence to support the trial court’s credibility

asse ssments such that they may not be disturbed under the clearly

erroneous standard

. ”); King v. Byrd , 716 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding the trial court’s determination of genuineness must be respected because it was able to “see the expressions , hear the tones of voices, [and] observe the general dynamics of the courtroom

. ”). Affirmed.
#### 315.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.

When acquiring electronic and information technology supplies and services (EIT) using negotiated procedures, contracting officers shall comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
**EXHIBIT        32**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States      Code)**

| Dated:                    July 10, 2007 | /s/ Zan                Guerry                                            |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        | Zan                  Guerry                                                                                                                                                                                |   |
|                                                        | Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                        |   |
|                                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
|                                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
| Dated:                    July 10, 2007 | /s/                Robert E.                Bosworth                                                                                                |   |
|                                                        | Robert                E. Bosworth                                                                                                                                                                          |   |
|                                                        | Principal                Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Anahita Villafane, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB ofAspyra, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 (a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 (b)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 (c)          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:

 (a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 (b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2008 |   | /s/ Anahita Villafane   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | Anahita Villafane       |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----