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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 232 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 232

 Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be 
taken while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the 
                                Speaker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

    Mr. Ney (for himself and Ms. Millender-McDonald) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

                             April 26, 2005

    The Committee on House Administration discharged; considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be 
taken while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the 
                                Speaker.

    Resolved,  That on such date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives may designate, official photographs of the House may be 
taken while the House is in actual session. Payment for the costs 
associated with taking, preparing, and distributing such photographs 
may be made from the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
§ 600.504 Information an applicant must submit. ( a ) Any applicant for financial assistance under a covered program shall submit with the application for financial assistance, or at such later time as may be specified by DOE, evidence for DOE to consider in making findings required under § 600.502(a) and findings concerning ownership status under § 600.502(b).
( b ) If an applicant for financial assistance is submitting evidence relating to future undertakings, such as an agreement under § 600.503(c) to promote manufacture in the United States of products resulting from a technology developed with financial assistance or to procure parts and materials from competitive suppliers, the applicant shall submit a representation affirming acceptance of these undertakings. The applicant should also briefly describe its plans, if any, for any manufacturing of products arising from the program-supported research and development, including the location where such manufacturing is expected to occur.
( c ) If an applicant for financial assistance is claiming to be a United States-owned company, the applicant must submit a representation affirming that it falls within the definition of that term provided in § 600.501.
( d ) DOE may require submission of additional information deemed necessary to make any portion of the determination required by § 600.502.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 349]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ349.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1964]]

Public Law 109-349
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   202 East Washington Street in Morris, Illinois, as the ``Joshua A. 
 Terando Morris Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 2006 -  [H.R. 
                                5428]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JOSHUA A. TERANDO MORRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 202 East Washington Street in Morris, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Joshua A. Terando Morris Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joshua A. 
Terando Morris Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 13, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5428:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 12, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 499 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 499

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 16, 2006.
Whereas on July 9, 2004, American journalist Paul Klebnikov was murdered by 
        gunmen as he exited the Moscow offices of Forbes Magazine;
Whereas no person has been convicted of any offense in connection with the 
        murder of Mr. Klebnikov;
Whereas Mr. Klebnikov is survived by his wife Helen, and his three young 
        children;
Whereas twelve journalists have been murdered in the Russian Federation since 
        2000 and Mr. Klebnikov was the first and only United States citizen 
        among these journalists;
Whereas the Department of State's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 
        states government pressure in Russia continues to weaken freedom of 
        expression and the independence and freedom of the media, particularly 
        among the major national television networks and regional media outlets;
Whereas the Russian Prosecutor General's office arrested and tried Musa Vahaev 
        and Kazbek Dukzov for the murder of Mr. Klebnikov;
Whereas Musa Vahaev and Kazbek Dukzov were acquitted on May 5, 2006, of the 
        charges of murdering Mr. Klebnikov;
Whereas the Government of Russia has stated that Mr. Klebnikov's murder was 
        ordered by Khozh-Akhmed Nukhayev, a fugitive Chechen criminal gang 
        leader, but has not publicly released any evidence of Mr. Nukhayev's 
        complicity;
Whereas it remains unclear who ordered the murder of Mr. Klebnikov or if any 
        party will be convicted of this crime; and
Whereas a group of United States investigative journalists has launched an 
        independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Klebnikov: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the murder of American journalist Paul Klebnikov on 
        July 9, 2004, in Moscow and the murders of other members of the media in 
        the Russian Federation;
            (2) commends the Russian Prosecutor General's office for its 
        continuing investigation of the murder of Mr. Klebnikov;
            (3) urges the Government of Russia to continue its inquiries to 
        determine and bring to justice all parties involved in the murder of Mr. 
        Klebnikov;
            (4) urges the Government of Russia to accept offers of assistance 
        with the investigation of Mr. Klebnikov's murder from the United States 
        and other concerned governments;
            (5) urges the Government of Russia to take appropriate action to 
        protect the independence and freedom of the Russian media and all 
        visiting members of the media; and
            (6) commends all journalists working and living in Russia for their 
        courageous dedication to transparency and the truth.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 298 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 26, 2005.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2528) making appropriations for military quality 
of life functions of the Department of Defense, military construction, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of 
rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
compost? To find out, start 

at the arrow and write 

down every other letter in 

the space below. 

Loose soil makes it 

easier for plant roots

to spread out. 

Tip for Grown-ups: 

Use compost instead of chemical 

Composting saves 

landfill space and 

turns garbage to 

goodness. Try it at home 

Crazy about Compost 

• , OR 

You need: 

Garbage 

Make your own compost. or at school! 

What do you get from , at least 3 feet wide 

and 3 feet deep 

• 	Big plastic garbage bags to line the or 

• 	 Soil (with earthworms and bugs) 

• 	 Twigs or wood 

chips 

• 	 Compost ingredients 

• 	A long stick 

or shovel 

to stir the 

compost 

Before you start: 

Ask an adult to help 

you poke 25–30 small 

holes in the lid, sides, 

and bottom of the can Twigs or 

for air and water. wood chips 

Step 1. Build up 

Compost layers. Each layer is 

about 8 inches thick. 2/3 full ingredients 

Step 2. Pour on 

enough water to Soil 

moisten the pile. 

Step 3. Make more 

layers and water them. 

Step 4. Each time 

you add compost 

ingredients add 

free. Spread compost over the ground at


the base of plants to give them needed


nutrients.
 Let nature’s recyclers go to work! 

For an informative slideshow about Use the stick or shovel to mix the pile every two to four days. In composting for kids, see: one or two months, your compost will become dark brown and http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ crumbly. It is ready to use on your lawn, houseplants, or garden! sustainable/slidesets/kidscompost/cover.html 

a little soil.	 fertilizers. It’s earth-friendly, effective, and 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2003 20
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A2 4 A1 10 9 . ANGEL DAVI S v . L & J AUTO SALES & LEASI NG, LLC.

A f ter the magistrate c o u rt entered j ud gmen t f o r p laintif

f A ngel D av is,

d ef end ant L & J Au t o Sales & Leasing, LLC (“ L & J ” ) ap p ealed to the State Co u rt o f

D o u gherty Co u nty. T hat co u rt entered ju d gment in f a v o r o f L & J f o r $354. 00, p lu s

c o sts and p o st- j ud gment interest. D av is then f iled this d irec t ap peal. W e , ho w ev er,

lac k j u risd ic tio n.
Pretermitting the issu e o f the j u d gment amo u nt, see OCGA § 5

- 6

- 35 (a) (6 ), an

ap p eal fro m a state c o u rt ord er d isp o sing o f a d e no vo a p p eal f ro m a magistrate c o urt

d ec isio n mu st be initiated by f iling an ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal. OCGA §

5

- 6 -35 ( a) (1 1 ); S tra cha n v

. Meri to r Mtg. Co rp. E a st , 21 6 Ga. A pp

. 82, 82 ( 4 5 3 S E 2 d

1 1 9 ) (1 9 9 5 ). “ Co m p lianc e w ith the d isc retio nary ap peals p r o c ed u re is j u risd ic tio nal. ”

S mo a k v

. D ept. o

f Hu ma n Res o u rces , 221 Ga. A pp

. 257 , 257 (47 1 SE2d 6 0) (1 9 9 6 ).

T h u s , Da v is’ f

ailu re to f ile a d isc retio nary ap p lic atio n d ep riv es u s o f j u r i s d i ct i o n

o v e r this ap p eal, w hic h is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. April 15, 2024

04/15/2024
#### Susan Palmer, Respondent, v Joseph Vitrano et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 642]

*657In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated April 4, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured while exiting the defendants’ convenience store when her leg came into contact with a display of firewood located immediately outside and to the right of the doorway. The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the placement of the display was the proximate cause of her accident, and that the defendants breached their duty of reasonable care by negligently placing the display in the entranceway such that it prevented exiting customers from having enough clearance to safely exit the premises.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that they had no actual or constructive notice of any dangerous or defective condition, and that the subject display was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs accident. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion on the ground that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the condition was hazardous, whether it was created by the defendants and caused the fall, and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. We affirm.

The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). For example, the deposition of the franchisee submitted by the defendants was insufficient to meet their prima facie burden of showing lack of notice of a dangerous condition *(see Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc.,*248 AD2d 436, 437 [1998]) since it is evident that the franchisee was not a person with knowledge of the day-to-day operation of the store *(see Gladstone v Burger King Corp.,*261 AD2d 357 [1999]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that whether the placement of the subject display created a hazardous condition is an issue of fact for the jury *(see Fasano v GreenWood Cemetery,*21 AD3d 446 [2005]; *cf. Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]), as are the remaining issues presented by the defendants’ motion, including whether the place*658ment of the subject display was a proximate cause of the plaintiff s accident *(see Palmer v Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation,*18 AD3d 634 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 382 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the 

enforcement of restraining orders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mrs. CAPPS (for herself and Mr. NADLER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to the enforcement of restraining orders. 

Whereas nearly one-third of American women report being 

physically or sexually abused by a boyfriend or husband 

at some point in their lives; 

Whereas intimate partner violence tends to be a pattern, 

rather than a one-time occurrence; 

Whereas domestic homicide is often the result of continuing 

abuse; 

Whereas restraining orders are necessary to protect victims 

of violence from further abuse and decrease the risk of 

continuing abuse or homicide; 

Whereas nearly half of all victims who obtain restraining orders are abused again; 
2 

•HRES 382 IH 

Whereas restraining orders exist to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence 

and include explicit instructions that violation of such orders are cause for arrest; 

Whereas law enforcement officials are directed to use every 

reasonable means to enforce a restraining order; 

Whereas the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Castle Rock 

v. Gonzales narrowed individuals’ Federal court recourse 

against police for failing to enforce a restraining order; 

and 

Whereas this decision highlights the need to better protect 

victims of domestic violence from violators of restraining 

orders: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that Congress should act and encourage 

3 States to act— 

4 (1) to ensure that restraining orders are uni5 formly enforced; and 

6 (2) to protect victims of domestic violence, sex7 ual assault, stalking, and dating violence from per8 petrators. 

Æ
#### § 160.4 Unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials.

Unauthorized carrying, transporting, or otherwise introducing or causing to be introduced any dangerous weapon, explosive, or other dangerous instrument or material likely to produce substantial injury or damage to persons or property, into or upon any facility, installation or real property subject to this part, is prohibited.
NO. 07-06-0217-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	JANUARY 18, 2007

	______________________________

	PAUL OTTWELL, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2003-404260; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION	

	Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of the offense of injury to a child and was sentenced, by the same jury, to a term of confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has filed a response.

	By his response to counsel’s Anders brief, appellant raises grounds that he alleges could possibly support an appeal.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).   We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							         Justice

Do not publish.
H. Res. 539

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

November 9, 2005.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and 

water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2006, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 

conference report and against its consideration are waived. 

The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2023056EN.01001801.xml

| 15.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/18

---

INFORMATION NOTICE – PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to Appendices I, II, V and VIII to the Agreement on Trade in Wines (Annex V), annexed to the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part

(2023/C 56/08)

The Republic of Chile has notified its approval of the adoption of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to Appendices I, II, V and VIII to the Agreement on Trade in Wines (Annex V), annexed to the Association Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part.

This Agreement therefore enters into force on 9 March 2023 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 28.7.2022, p. 19.

---