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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1035 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1035

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to cover into the treasury 
 of the Virgin Islands revenue from tax on fuel produced in the Virgin 
              Islands and entered into the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2023

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to cover into the treasury 
 of the Virgin Islands revenue from tax on fuel produced in the Virgin 
              Islands and entered into the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FUEL TAX COVERED OVER INTO VIRGIN ISLANDS TREASURY.

    (a) In General.--Section 7652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
                            ``(j) Shipment of fuel from the virgin 
                        islands to the united states.--All taxes 
                        collected under section 4081(a) on fuel 
                        produced in the Virgin Islands and entered into 
                        the United States from the Virgin Islands shall 
                        be covered into the treasury of the Virgin 
                        Islands.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to fuel entered into the United States after December 31, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50897

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN MANUEL CHAVARRIA-GALVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-203-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Manuel

Chavarria-Galvan raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Gale Howell, Appellant-Respondent, v Lemuel Howell, Respondent-Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on June 19, 1978, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Cross appeal by defendant-respondent-appellant is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as abandoned. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
750.7106-2 Amendments without consideration. ( a ) Where an actual or threatened loss under a foreign assistance contract, however caused, will impair the productive ability of a contractor whose continued performance of any foreign assistance contract or whose continued operation as a source of supply is found to be essential to protect the foreign policy interests of the United States, the contract may be adjusted to the extent necessary to avoid such impairment to the contractor's productive ability.
( b ) Where a contractor suffers a loss (not merely a diminution of anticipated profits) on a foreign assistance contract as a result of Government action, the character of the Government action will generally determine whether any adjustment in the contract will be made and its extent. Where the Government action is directed primarily at the contractor and is taken by the Government in its capacity as the other contracting party, the contract may be adjusted if fairness so requires; thus where such Government action, although not creating any liability on its part, increases the cost of performance, considerations of fairness may make appropriate some adjustment in the contract.
[49 FR 13257, Apr. 3, 1984, as amended at 89 FR 4207, Jan. 23, 2024]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10395 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and carry out a 

pilot program to furnish a headstone or burial marker to veterans who 

died on or before November 1, 1990, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2024 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish and 

carry out a pilot program to furnish a headstone or 

burial marker to veterans who died on or before November 1, 1990, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honoring Our Heroes 

5 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10395 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PILOT PRO2 GRAM TO FURNISH HEADSTONES AND BUR3 IAL MARKERS TO COVERED VETERANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Af5 fairs, acting through the Under Secretary for Memorial 

6 Affairs, shall establish and carry out a pilot program 

7 under which the Secretary shall furnish, when requested, 

8 an appropriate headstone or burial marker for the purpose 

9 of commemorating a covered veteran. 

10 (b) APPLICATIONS.—An individual desiring to re11 quest a headstone or marker for the purpose of commemo12 rating a covered veteran under such pilot program shall 

13 submit to the Secretary an application in such time, in 

14 such form, and containing such information and assur15 ances as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

16 (c) UPDATE TO ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—Dur17 ing the period the authority to carry out the pilot program 

18 under this section is effective, the Under Secretary shall 

19 update the internet website of the National Cemetery Ad20 ministration with respect to the requirements for eligibility 

21 for a headstone or burial marker under the laws adminis22 tered by the Secretary. 

23 (d) TERMINATION DATE.—The authority of the Sec24 retary to carry out the pilot program under this section 

25 shall terminate on the date that is two years after the date 

26 of the enactment of this Act. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 10395 IH

1 (e) COVERED VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, 

2 the term ‘‘covered veteran’’ means a veteran (as defined 

3 in section 101 of title 38, United States Code) who died 

4 on or before November 1, 1990. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50305

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE WENSESLADO VEGA-VASQUEZ, also known as Tony Carrasco, also 

known as Roberto Martinez, also known as Jose Alfredo Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-2332-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Wenseslado 

Vega-Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vega-Vasquez has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50305 Document: 00514280578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-50305

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50305 Document: 00514280578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           LGBT Populations: A Snapshot of the Knowledge Base and Research Needs      

# LGBT Populations: A Snapshot of the Knowledge Base and Research Needs

These chapter briefs summarize the knowledge base and research needs related to low-income, at-risk lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and their interactions with human services. The briefs are separated into three topic areas:
                  - 		Low-income and at-risk LGBT populations
                  - 		The child welfare system and LGBT youth and LGBT adults
                  -  LGBT youth , particularly related to runaway and homeless youth and sexual health 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/lgbt-populations-a-snapshot-of-the-knowledge-base-and-research-needs?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
619.811-2 Competitive. ( a ) If the award is made under the delegation of 8(a) contracting authority, competitive contracts for 8(a) firms shall be prepared in accordance with the same standards as 8(a) sole source contracts. See 619.811-1.
( b ) If the acquisition is conducted under the MOU cited in 619.800, the process for obtaining signatures shall be as specified in 619.811-1(d)(4).
#### Abraham Solomon, appellant, v. Kearney Dailey Glass Company, Inc., appellee.

Gen. No. 30,453.

Action for breach of contract of purchase and sale. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John F. Haas, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 25, 1926.

Dulsky, Friedman & Schimberg, for appellant.

Keely & Murphy, for appellee; John F. Bolton, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 636.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

The Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 36.209.
#### In the Matter of Shirley A. J. Mitchell, Appellant, v James Mitchell, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner wife appeals (by permission) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated December 12, 1978, which, *inter alia,*awarded "temporary” custody of the child of the marriage to the respondent. Order reversed, with costs, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a hearing to determine custody, visitation rights, and support. The parties came before the Family Court having reached a tentative agreement on all matters concerning the breakup of their marriage except the details of visitation. Their child, then three years of age, had been in her mother’s physical custody since the breakup four months earlier. The court raised the issue of custody, *sua sponte,*and ordered the return of the child to her father, who was to have custody from Monday through Friday. The petitioner was to have custody on weekends. The question of whether a parent has time to take care of a child is an important one when custody is in issue (cf. *Bullotta v Bullotta,*43 AD2d 847). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the petitioner cannot properly care for her child because of her employment. Moreover, serious questions were raised concerning the respondent’s fitness and those questions were not adequately answered in the course of the brief hearing that resulted in this order. Any change in custody, however brief the period, is disruptive (cf. *Matter of Nehra v Uhlar,*43 NY2d 242, 249). The order under review would give the respondent physical custody of the child for five days a week and leave final determination of custody until some unspecified time in the future. Such changes in custody should be avoided unless they are necessary (see *Dintruff*v *Mc-Greevy,*34 NY2d 887). A change in custody should, at the very least, follow a full hearing in which all relevant aspects of the matter are considered and weighed by the court. *(Obey v Degling,*37 NY2d 768.) The hearing in the instant case was inadequate. The custody issue was raised by the court, *sua sponte,*at the hearing and the parties, each of whom was represented by counsel, were not afforded an adequate opportunity to prepare their cases or to present such evidence as was available. No investigation was undertaken by the probation department and there was no independent evidence indicating the fitness of the respondent to have custody. The matter must therefore be remanded to Family Court for a hearing and determination on the issues of custody, visitation and support. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.60
Agreed form 









Amendment of clause 13.2 (a) of the Omega Pharma SPA




Perrigo Ireland 2 DAC
Treasury Building
Lower Ground Canal Street
Dublin 2 
Ireland


Merelbeke, 30 December 2016,




Dear Sirs,


Reference is made to clause 13.2 (Non-compete and non-solicitation) of the sale and purchase agreement dated 6 November 2014 between Perrigo Company Plc (which assigned its rights and obligations to Perrigo Ireland 2 DAC), Holdco I BE NV and Alychlo NV, as amended per 27 April 2016, with respect to 95.77% of the shares in Omega Pharma Invest NV (the Omega Pharma SPA).


Further reference is made to clause 3.1 of the asset purchase agreement dated 2 December 2016 between Etixx NV and Alychlo NV in respect of the Transferred Assets and the Assumed Liabilities (as defined therein) (the APA).


We hereby request your acknowledgment and agreement that clause 13.2 (a) of the Omega Pharma SPA shall not apply to the Transaction contemplated in the APA, and that such Clause 13.2 (a) of the Omega Pharma SPA shall not prevent Alychlo or any of its affiliated persons (including Mr Marc Coucke) in any way, whether alone or jointly with another party, and whether directly or indirectly, from carrying on the Business as defined in the APA, as well as developing any line extensions and new developments under the Business so long as the products are marketed under the Etixx brand as drinks, bars, gels and supplements marketed in each case for sports nutrition and sports supplement purposes only, as of the Closing of the Transaction contemplated in the APA.


Capitalised terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Omega Pharma SPA.


All other provisions of the Omega Pharma SPA shall remain applicable and in full force and effect.  
This letter and all non-contractual obligations arising out of it or in connection with it shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Belgium.
Any dispute arising out or in connection with this letter shall be exclusively and definitively settled in accordance with the rules of CEPANI. The arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three arbitrators.  Each of Alychlo NV and Perrigo Ireland 2 DAC shall 


1








Agreed form









nominate in the request for arbitration and the answer, respectively, one arbitrator. The place of arbitration shall be Brussels and the language of the proceedings shall be English. The foregoing does not exclude the right of the Parties to ask for interim relief before the president of the Dutch-speaking commercial court of Brussels or any other court having jurisdiction. 


Yours faithfully






For Alychlo NV (Lembergsesteenweg 19, 9820 Merelbeke (VAT BE) 0895.140.645 R.P.R Gent)




/s/ Mr. Marc Coucke                                  
Mr. Marc Coucke
Chairman & Managing Director




ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED


PERRIGO IRELAND 2 DAC






/s/ Lou Cherico                                   
Name: Lou Cherico
Title : Director
Date : 30 December 2016




2
#### In re TODD’S Estate.

(Supreme Court, Apellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 7, L906.)

In the matter of the estate of George (V. Todd, deceased.

No opinion. Appeal disnissed, with costs, together with $10 costs of :he motion.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 145 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 145

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Drug 
  Administration relating to ``Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed 
                                Tests''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2024

  Mr. Finstad (for himself and Mr. Crenshaw) submitted the following 
  joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Drug 
  Administration relating to ``Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed 
                                Tests''.

    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 Food and Drug Administration relating to 
``Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests'' (89 Fed. Reg. 37286; 
May 6, 2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Getch, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 23, 1977, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Particularly in light of the fact that the defense theory upon trial was that defendant was too intoxicated at the time the crimes in question were committed to be able to form the requisite criminal intent, defendant complains that the traditional charge of the trial court on intent constituted a shifting of the burden of proof and, hence, was prejudicial error. The charge given was as follows: "Upon the. question of intent, you may infer that a person intends that which is the natural and necessary and probable consequence of the act done by him. And unless the act was done under circumstances to preclude existence of such intent, you have a right to find from the results produced an intention to effect it.” Excluding more troublesome situations such as where the crime charged is conspiracy or proof of a specific intent is required, we do not believe that the instant charge has the same potential for impermissible burden shifting as that often used and condemned in the Federal courts. The charge which has been condemned permits the jury to infer intent from the natural and probable consequences of an act "unless the contrary appears from the evidence”, thus suggesting that the inference is really a presumption which *892the defendant must overcome with contrary evidence of his own (see, e.g., *United States v Robinson,*545 F2d 301, 305-306; *Mann v United States,*319 F2d 404, 407-410, cert den 375 US 986). Nevertheless, in order to avoid even the slightest possibility that a jury may be misled into thinking that a defendant bears any part of the burden of proof on the issue of intent, it would be advisable for the trial court to abstain from using the phrase " *‘unless the act was done under circumstances to preclude existence of such intent’ ”*(see *People v Dellipizzi,*61 AD2d 961). Read as a whole, the jury instructions at bar make it abundantly clear that the burden of proof was not shifted to defendant but was borne by the prosecution, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of each crime charged. Therefore, defendant has not established the existence of reversible error. O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.