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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2405 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify the circumstances under which the enhanced penalty provisions for subsequent 

convictions apply. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2013 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 

clarify the circumstances under which the enhanced penalty provisions for subsequent convictions apply. 

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 ‘‘Firearm Recidivist 

5 Sentencing Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ENHANCED PENALTIES PROVI7 SIONS. 

8 Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2405 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Ex3 cept to the extent that a greater minimum sen4 tence is otherwise provided by this subsection or 

5 by any other provision of law, any’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘Any’’; 

7 (B) in each of subparagraphs (A) through 

8 (C), by striking ‘‘less’’ each place it appears 

9 and inserting ‘‘more’’; and 

10 (C) in subparagraph (C)— 

11 (i) by striking ‘‘In the case of a sec12 ond or subsequent conviction under this 

13 subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘If a person is 

14 convicted under this subsection after a 

15 prior conviction under this subsection has 

16 become final’’; and 

17 (ii) by striking ‘‘imprisonment’’ and 

18 inserting ‘‘a term of imprisonment for any 

19 term of years or’’; 

20 (2) in paragraph (5)— 

21 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

22 ‘‘less’’ and inserting ‘‘more’’; and 

23 (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking 

24 ‘‘punished by death or’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2405 IH

1 ‘‘(6) The provisions of section 411 of the Con2 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 851), other than 

3 subsections (a)(2) and (e) of such section, as in ef4 fect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph, 

5 shall apply to sentencing for convictions under this 

6 subsection in the same manner in which such provi7 sions apply to sentencing for offenses under part D 

8 of title II of such Act.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Croton Colonial Restaurant & Diner, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review determinations of the respondent which, after a hearing, (1) suspended the restaurant liquor license of petitioner Croton Colonial Restaurant & Diner, Inc., for 10 days and (2) sent a letter of warning to petitioner Cortlandt Colonial Restaurant, Inc. Determinations confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The authority’s determinations that petitioners were guilty of the charges are supported by substantial evidence. The penalties imposed by the authority are not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2527 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide veterans 

with counseling and treatment for sexual trauma that 

occurred during inactive duty training. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2527 RFS

1 SECTION 1. COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FOR SEXUAL 

2 TRAUMA OCCURRING DURING INACTIVE 

3 DUTY FOR TRAINING. 

4 Section 1720D of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘active 

7 duty or active duty for training’’ and inserting ‘‘ac8 tive duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty 

9 training’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (f)— 

11 (A) by striking ‘‘this section, the’’ and in12 serting the following: ‘‘this section: 

13 ‘‘(1) The’’; and 

14 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

15 paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(2) The term ‘veteran’, with respect to inactive duty 

17 training described in subsection (a)(1), also includes an 

18 individual who— 

19 ‘‘(A) is not otherwise eligible for the benefits of 

20 this chapter; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2527 RFS

1 ‘‘(B) while serving in the reserve components of 

2 the Armed Forces, performed such inactive duty 

3 training but did not serve on active duty.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRYAN RICHARD LOVE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 71 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, the 

Motion to Compel Audio and Transcripts, and the Petition to Remove Detainer or to Set 

Bail on Detainer are DENIED.
Docket No: FAA-2015-2966 Dir ID: 2015-NM-051-AD
98-1475.

#### State v. Hartman.

Summit App. No. CR97091987. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay pending disposition of this appeal and appeal to the United States Supreme Court,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay be, and hereby is, granted to the extent that a stay, pending disposition of this appeal and further order of this court, is granted.
[Cite as Feazel v. Mills, 123 Ohio St.3d 240, 2009-Ohio-5257.] 

FEAZEL ET AL., APPELLEES, v. MILLS ET AL; STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as Feazel v. Mills, 123 Ohio St.3d 240, 2009-Ohio-5257.] 

Discretionary appeal accepted, court of appeals’ judgment vacated on the 

authority of Walburn v. Dunlap, and cause remanded to apply Walburn v. 

Dunlap. 

(No. 2009-0949 — Submitted September 1, 2009 — Decided October 6, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, Nos. CA2009-02-063 and 

CA2009-03-091. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. 

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals issued on April 9, 2009 

dismissing the appeal below is vacated on the authority of Walburn v. Dunlap, 

121 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-1221, 904 N.E.2d 863, and the cause is remanded 

to the court of appeals to apply Walburn v. Dunlap. 

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

LANZINGER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, 

for appellant. 

______________________
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 247 

To require that the United States Government prioritize all obligations on 

the debt held by the public, Social Security benefits, and military pay 

in the event that the debt limit is reached, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require that the United States Government prioritize 

all obligations on the debt held by the public, Social 

Security benefits, and military pay in the event that 

the debt limit is reached, 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 ‘‘Ensuring the Full 

5 Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting 

6 America’s Soldiers and Seniors Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

2 

•HR 247 IH

1 (1) The Secretary of the Treasury is legally re2 quired to carry out the obligations set forth in Pub3 lic Law 104–121. 

4 (2) The debt obligations held by the Social Se5 curity trust fund may only be redeemed in order to 

6 pay Social Security benefits and necessary adminis7 trative expenses. 

8 (3) So long as there is a positive balance of as9 sets in the Social Security trust fund, an appropriate 

10 amount of obligations may be converted into an 

11 equal amount of publicly held debt in order to fi12 nance the full and timely payment of all Social Secu13 rity obligations without exceeding the debt ceiling. 

14 SEC. 3. PRIORITIZE OBLIGATIONS ON THE DEBT HELD BY 

15 THE PUBLIC, SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS, 

16 AND MILITARY PAY. 

17 In the event that the debt of the United States Gov18 ernment reaches the statutory limit as defined in section 

19 3101 of title 31, United States Code, the following shall 

20 take equal priority over all other obligations incurred by 

21 the Government of the United States: 

22 (1) The authority of the Department of the 

23 Treasury contained in section 3123 of title 31, 

24 United States Code, to pay with legal tender the 

25 principal and interest on debt held by the public. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

3 

•HR 247 IH

1 (2) The authority of the Commissioner of Social 

2 Security to pay monthly old-age, survivors’ and dis3 ability insurance benefits under title II of the Social 

4 Security Act. 

5 (3) The payment of pay and allowances for 

6 members of the Armed Forces on active duty. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WANDA HOLLY CHASTAIN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv4181-MCR-HTC

BADARUDDIN SOOMRO,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated March 18, 2020. ECF No. 5. The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-04181-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv4181-MCR-HTC

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

3. The clerk shall close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of May 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04181-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 2
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0618

SAT Date: 6/20/2014

Print Date: 7/23/2014

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: No reasonable analogs were found.

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2 Health: SAT recommends that this material be forwarded to DHS ; Eco: 

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

2 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR; MUTA; SENS; NEURO (UNCERT); DEVEL (UNCERT); 

AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0618

FATE: 

VP = 1.5E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

log Koc = 1.00 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)

log Fish BAF = -0.05 (E) 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 3
POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = U

Sorption to soils/sediments = low

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Not absorbed through the skin as the neat material 

moderate absorption through the skin if in solution, good absorption from the lung and GI tract 

(pchem). Concern for irritation, mutagenicity and sensitization and uncertain concern for 

neurotoxicity based on the moiety. Uncertain concern for developmental 

toxicity based on the moiety.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 0.957

fish _ chronic value 9.9

daphnid _ chronic 

value

1.9

algal _ chronic 

value

0.234

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for acrylamides; SAR chemical 

class = acrylamides, MW = 153; 

pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and 

nominal concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

23

SARs acrylamides

SAR Class acrylamides

Ecotox Category Acrylamides

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 3
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 3
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CI-13110, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Charlotte

Pawel Jonas and William James Jonas, III, pending in the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the

Honorable Michael P. Peden presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00470-CV

IN RE WILLIAM JAMES JONAS III, Relator

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 7, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

The court has considered relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for

emergency relief and is of the opinion the relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly,

relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and request for emergency relief are denied. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CHASE ANDERSON ROMAGNANO, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:19cv3557/MCR/EMT

PAM CHILDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s 

Report and Recommendation dated October 31, 2019. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to 

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted 

and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:19cv3557/MCR/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of November 2019.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Davidson Growth Plus, L.P. (the "Partnership"),for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy P
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated:       November 30, 2006

        /s/  KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY
      Name:  Kathleen P. McSherry

     Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
§ 301.86-7 Assembly and inspection of regulated articles. ( a ) Any person (other than a person authorized to issue certificates or limited permits under § 301.86-5(c)) who desires a certificate or limited permit to move a regulated article interstate must notify an inspector[1] as far in advance of the desired interstate movement as possible, but no less than 48 hours before the desired interstate movement.
( b ) The regulated article must be assembled at the place and in the manner the inspector designates as necessary to comply with this subpart.
[72 FR 51984, Sept. 12, 2007, as amended at 87 FR 80015, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.86-7
[1] See footnote 1 in § 301.86-5.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:42:58-0400
      - 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Crinston Hedrington, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 19, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Appellants-Respondents. — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Florence X. and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Otsego County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Floyd X., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County, entered March 2, 1978, which (1) adjudged appellant’s six children to be permanently neglected; (2) permanently terminated appellant’s custody of the children, and (3) awarded custody to the petitioner. Before children can be adjudged permanently neglected, the petitioner must show that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship, except when such efforts would be detrimental to the children (Social Services Law, § 384-b, subd 7, par [a]; Family Ct Act, § 614, subd 1, par [c]; *Matter of Ray A. M,*37 NY2d 619, 623). The petitioner admits its failure to attempt to further the parental relationship. It seeks justification for such failure in the exception to the *943rule. The proof offered at the hearing, however, fails to show that such efforts, if undertaken, would have been detrimental to the children. The children had never been physically neglected or abused by the appellant father; he remained in constant contact with them; and he performed the disciplinary and companionship functions of a father. The appellant’s problems were lack of a job, a stable home after his wife’s death in 1970 and a periodic drinking problem—all of which might have well responded to diligent efforts if the petitioner attempted them. How the petitioner’s aiding of the father in these problems would detrimentally affect the children lacks any basis in the record. Additionally, the record clearly indicates that petitioner’s entire case record was introduced into evidence without providing advance notice to respondent or an adequate opportunity to examine its contents. Such a procedure violated the principle of "fundamental fairness” established by the Court of Appeals in *Matter of Leon RR*(48 NY2d 117) and warrants reversal (cf. *Matter of Lisa Ann U.,*75 AD2d 944). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.