alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 5, 2020

NO. 03-19-00705-CV

Y. S., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the modified final decree signed by the trial court on September 11, 2019. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s modified final decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s modified final decree. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
#### § 319.41-2 Application for permits.

Persons contemplating the importation of any of the articles specified in § 319.41-1(b) shall first make application to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Program for a permit in accordance with §§ 319.7 through 319.7-5.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[79 FR 19810, Apr. 10, 2014]
Non-Employee Director Compensation



 






Exhibit 10(am) – Non-Employee Director Compensation




Non-Employee Director Compensation




Currently, compensation of directors who are not salaried employees of Avatar is $32,500 per annum.
A member of the Executive Committee who is not a salaried employee of Avatar receives a retainer of
$2,000 per annum. Members and Chairman of the Audit Committee receive additional compensation of
$12,000 and $14,000 per annum, respectively. Members and the Chairman of the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee receive additional compensation of $4,000 and $7,000, respectively.
Members and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receive additional compensation of $4,000
and $5,000 per annum, respectively.
#### § 2500.021 Guiding principles.

The guiding principle for Federal assistance proposal review and evaluation is to ensure that each proposal is treated in a consistent and fair manner. After the evaluation process by the review panel, OAO will provide an opportunity for applicant feedback in as timely a manner as possible.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 207 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2319 

[Report No. 113–287] 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial 

Establishment Act of 1994. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. MULLIN (for himself, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N

of New Mexico, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. COLE, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Additional sponsors: Mr. TIPTON, Mr. KLINE, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. DAINES, and 

Mr. COOK

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Deleted sponsor: Mrs. KIRKPATRICK (added June 17, 2013; deleted July 16, 

2013) 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 11, 2013] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2319 RH

A BILL 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American 

Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2319 RH

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 ‘‘Native American Vet5 erans’ Memorial Amendments Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS’ MEMORIAL. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.—Section 

8 3 of the Native American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment 

9 Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘within the in12 terior structure of the facility provided for by’’ and 

13 inserting ‘‘on property under the jurisdiction of the 

14 Museum on the site described in’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘, in con16 sultation with the Museum, is’’ and inserting ‘‘and 

17 the National Museum of the American Indian are’’. 

18 (b) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—Section 4(a) of the Na19 tive American Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 

20 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q–5 note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended— 

21 (1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘AND NATIONAL

22 MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN’’ after ‘‘AMER23 ICAN INDIANS’’; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 2319 RH

1 (2) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shall be 

2 solely’’ and inserting ‘‘and the National Museum of 

3 the American Indian shall be’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 207 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2319 

[Report No. 113–287] 

A BILL 

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American 

Veterans’ Memorial Establishment Act of 1994. 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                                                                    DATE
                           BUSINESS OR             PERCENTAGE       ACQUIRED/      DOMESTIC
NAME                       TYPE OF OPERATION       OF OWNERSHIP     INCORPORATED   OR FOREIGN
----                       -----------------       ------------     ------------   ----------
<S>                        <C>                     <C>              <C>            <C>
International Companies

Bernard Chaus
International              Wholesaler                               Delaware
(Hong Kong), Inc.          Ladies Apparel          100%             1/05/88        Domestic
22-2868547

Bernard Chaus
International              Wholesaler                               Delaware
(Korea), Inc.              Ladies Apparel          100%             12/31/87       Domestic
22-2868618

1 Bernard Chaus
International              Wholesaler                               Delaware
(Philippines), Inc.        Ladies Apparel          100%             2/10/88        Domestic
22-2869803

1 Bernard Chaus
International              Wholesaler                               Delaware
(Taiwan), Inc.             Ladies Apparel          100%             2/10/88        Domestic
22-2869810

Others

1 Chaus Specialists, Inc.  Merchandising                            New Jersey
22-3093898                 Specialists             100%             2/18/91        Domestic

2 Chaus Retail, Inc.       Retail Stores           100%             New Jersey
22-2850337                                                          10/19/87       Domestic
</TABLE>



-----------------------------
1 These corporations are no longer in operation.
2 This company was originally formed as Chaus Retail Outlet of Burlington.
  Subsequently, the outlet was closed and in January 1991 the corporation was
  reactivated as Chaus Retail, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2228 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2228

 To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student achievement 
   and provide States with greater flexibility on assessment design.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2013

 Mr. Petri (for himself and Mr. Butterfield) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student achievement 
   and provide States with greater flexibility on assessment design.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Assessment Accuracy and Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENTS.

    Section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 6311) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) Use of Adaptive Assessments.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, a State may provide that the assessments to be used 
        to measure student achievement by that State, and by the 
        schools and local educational agencies of that State, shall be 
        adaptive assessments (rather than the assessments otherwise 
        required by this Act) that accurately assess student 
        achievement above and below grade level while also measuring 
        grade-level performance.
            ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
        adaptive assessment is an assessment that changes its 
        difficulty according to the performance of a student but 
        reports the outcome of the assessment on a scale that is common 
        to all students.
            ``(3) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
        protocol for evaluating the adaptive assessments is included in 
        peer review guidance documents.''.
                                 <all>
```
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:42:03-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Lawrence Ahrens, defendant in error, v. City of Chicago, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,322.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and Alexander M. Smietanka, City Attorney, for plaintiff in error; Quin O’Brien and James J. Danaher, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. Joseph D. Ryan and Louis P. Miller, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THERON N. LYNCH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15192

D.C. No. 4:08-cv-05424-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Theron N. Lynch, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the abstract

of judgment for his sentence is incorrect and requires him to serve his full

sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

FILED

OCT 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15192

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as Heck-barred because a

judgment in Lynch’s favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his . . .

sentence,” and Lynch has not demonstrated that his sentence has already been

invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793730
<NAME>                        NHP RETIREMENT HOUSING PARTNERS I L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4,017,181
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  29,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         63,924,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,752,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56,071,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        42,672,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,436,111)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56,071,884
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,488,099
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,781,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               505,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,775,285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,574,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,574,668)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### § 29.3066 Tan color.

A light red-yellow.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2391 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip 

Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mrs. WAGNER (for herself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mrs. HARTZLER, 

Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. LONG, and Mr. SMITH of 

Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as 

the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL PHILLIP D. VINNEDGE POST 

4 OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, 

7 Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance 

8 Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2391 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

2 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Phillip 

5 Vinnedge Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SYLVESTER JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:19cv515-MW/HTC

MARK INCH, SECRETARY,

FLORIDA DEP’T OF CORR., et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 4. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, 

is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on November 25, 2019.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
#### Daniel V. Ventry, Jr., Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v City of Niagara Falls, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial granted unless plaintiff shall stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $1,236.65, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and, as modified, is affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, asserted multiple causes of action against the city. Their claims arose out of an altercation with city police which occurred in the early morning hours when the police investigated an occurrence in a barroom in which plaintiffs were employed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff husband and only on the causes of action for false imprisonment and assault. In announcing the verdict the foreman particularized the various items of damages and what they were intended to compensate and it is apparent that a substantial portion of the verdict awarded damages not lawfully recoverable in these causes of action. Thus, the jury found no cause for action on plaintiff husband’s malicious prosecution claim, but improperly awarded him $700 for attorney’s fees expended in the defense of the criminal prosecution and SLA hearing *(Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451, 459, cert den *sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg,*423 US 929). It awarded travel expenses of $300 to plaintiffs, originally New York residents who had moved to the State of Maine after instituting this lawsuit, and finally, inasmuch as the jury found no cause for action on plaintiff wife’s cause of action for assault, it improperly included damages of $96.21, *1021representing her hospital and medical bills. Accordingly, only an award of damages of $1,236.65 is supported by the record. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Supreme Court—false arrest, etc.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.
Order filed, May 30, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00046

- CR

____________ ERIC DEMOND DOUGLAS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1122749



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due May 22, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Because the re porter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Wong Lee , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of Irving J. Kaufman, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

July 10, 1969.

*359
      *John G. Bonomi*of counsel *(Ronald Eisenman*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Irving J. Kaufman,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has moved to confirm the report of the Referee designated to hear charges against the respondent. Respondent admits the facts forming the basis of the charges and his misconduct. The sole question is the sanction to be imposed.

The first charge concerns the use by respondent of funds delivered to him in escrow by the purchaser of real property. Respondent represented the seller and the funds were to be used upon the closing of title.

The second charge concerns the issuance of approximately 29 checks which were returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Although the worthless checks were not related to his law practice, their issuance cannot be condoned and is a violation of professional standards. *(Matter of Buttles,*23 A D 2d 446; *Matter of Kaufman,*29 A D 2d 298; *Matter of Vyner,*12 A D 2d 10.) Nor does the fact that the checks were later made good excuse the practice. *(Matter of Danowit,*7 A D 2d 361.)

It appears that respondent has been in practice for approximately 30 years. During all of this time he was in the employ of a law firm and had few clients of his own. He was not a frequent depositary of clients’ funds. The conversion of funds was an isolated transaction in his long career at the Bar. All the checks had been paid and complete restitution made at or prior to the time these proceedings were commenced against respondent.

We take into consideration respondent’s long period of faithful service at the Bar and his prior unblemished record, his good faith in making complete restitution, and his candid and full admission of the facts and contrite attitude. With these mitigating factors in mind, we find that suspension for a period of six months would be appropriate.

*360Motion to confirm the report of the Referee sustaining the charges should he granted, and the respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of six months.

*Stevens,*P. J., Markewioh, Nunez, McNally and'Stetjeb, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months, effective August 11,1969.
§ 3.51 Scope. ( a ) This subpart applies to any agency that administers a program that gives rise to a delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States and to any agency that pursues recovery of such debt.
( b ) This subpart will apply notwithstanding any provision of State law.
( c ) Nothing in this subpart precludes the compromise of a debt or the suspension or termination of collection action in accordance with the provisions of this part or other applicable law.
( d ) The receipt of payments pursuant to this subpart does not preclude an agency from pursuing other debt collection remedies under this part. An agency may pursue such debt collection remedies separately or in conjunction with administrative wage garnishment.
( e ) This subpart does not apply to the collection of delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States from the wages of Federal employees from their Federal employment. Federal pay is subject to the salary offset procedures of subpart G of this part.
( f ) Nothing in this subpart requires agencies to duplicate notices or administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations, or other provisions of this part.
( g ) This subpart does not apply to foreign debt.