alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 255

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 4, 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. 1185) to reform the Federal deposit insurance

system, 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 Financial Services. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original

bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by

the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill.

Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration
2

•HRES 255 EH

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. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 13 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 13 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 13 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 13 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### § 434.511 Orientation and shape.

511.1 The Prototype Building shall consist of the same number of stories, and gross and conditioned floor area as the Proposed Design, with equal area per story. The building shape shall be rectangular, with a 2.5:1 aspect ratio. The long dimensions of the building shall face East and West. The fenestration shall be uniformly distributed in proportion to exterior wall area. Floor-to-floor height for the Prototype Building shall be 13 ft. except for dwelling units in hotels/motels and multi-family high-rise residential buildings where floor-to-floor height shall be 9.5 ft.

511.2 The Reference Building shall consist of the same number of stories, and gross floor area for each story as the Proposed Design. Each floor shall be oriented in the same manner as the Proposed Design. The geometric form shall be the same as the Proposed Design.
#### § 590.206 Notice of procedures.

In all proceedings where, following a notice of application and the time specified in the notice for the filing of responses thereto, the Assistant Secretary determines to have additional procedures, which may consist of the filing of supplemental written comments, written interrogatories or other discovery procedures, a conference, oral presentation, or trial-type hearing, the Assistant Secretary shall provide the parties with notice of the procedures the Assistant Secretary has determined to follow in the proceeding and advise the parties of their right to request any additional procedures in accordance with the provisions of § 590.310. The notice of procedures may identify and request comments on specific issues of fact, law, or policy relevant to the proceeding and may establish a time limit for requesting additional procedures.
#### § 990.8 Production under Federal law.

Nothing in this subpart prohibits the production of hemp in a State or the territory of an Indian Tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is not approved under this subpart if produced in accordance with subpart C of this part, and if the production of hemp is not otherwise prohibited by the State or Indian Tribe.
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 30.63 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
[57 FR 55072, Nov. 24, 1992]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8611]

Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Meeting Notice

Closed Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State 
Department--Overseas Security Advisory Council on February 11 and 12, 
2014. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), 
it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. 
The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies 
and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets 
and proprietary commercial information that is privileged and 
confidential, and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques 
and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a 
global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector 
security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. 
business information overseas.
    For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, 
phone: 571-345-2214.

    Dated: January 23, 2014.
Gregory B. Starr,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-01584 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
```
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 402ND DISTRICT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 31st

day of July, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF A. B., A CHILD

NO. 12-15-00037-CV; Trial Court No. 2014-096

By per curiam opinion.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 9

th day of October, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Wallace *v.*City of Atlanta.

Beck, J.

The City of Atlanta issued against Wallace an execution for the cost of repaving a sidewalk upon which abutted property owned by him. This execution was levied upon his property, and he filed an affidavit of illegality, which, upon the trial, was dismissed on demurrer. *Held:*

1. The mayor and general council of the City of Atlanta have, under its charter, power and authority to order such pavements or sidewalks laid as they deem proper (Code of Atlanta (1910), section 340, p. 359) ; and • the power to pave includes the power to repave when the sidewalk be- ■ comes so much worn or defective as to be no longer useful.

2. The provision in section 346, par. 3, of the Code of the City of Atlanta, touching a petition in writing by the owners of at least one half of the • real estate abutting on the street, providing that such petition shall have the approval of the chief of construction, has no reference and is not a prerequisite to the exercise of the power to order a repavement - of the sidewalk. See act approved September 3, 1881 (Acts 1880-81, p. 359), being an act to amend the charter of the City of Atlanta.

3. Nor do the provisions for the publication of notice, in section 347 of the Code of the City of Atlanta of 1910, have reference to action taken or proposed to be taken by the city authorities in regard to the repavement of the sidewalk, but these are applicable only to cases in which it is necessary that the owners of at least one half the real estate abutting on the street to be paved file a petition.

4. The remaining ground of the affidavit of illegality, in which the affiant seeks to show that the action of the city council in ordering the laying of the pavement for which the assessment was made was arbitrary and • fraudulent, is not sufficient for that purpose. The statement that “Deponent alleges that he is advised and believes, and so charges the fact to be, that the recitals in said ordinance whereunder said assessment is ■ made, to the effect that ‘the paving originally laid is worn out to that extent that it is no longer useful as a good pavement,’ are false and fraudulent and were so known to be by the members of the general council introducing said ordinance, and that the mayor and other mem*650bers of the general council were deceived and misled into adopting said ordinance by the aforesaid false and fraudulent representations of the members so introducing the same,” does' not amount to a sufficiently direct and affirmative allegation that the council itself took fraudulent action in the matter; and therefore this ground failed to raise an issue which the court was bound to submit to a jury.

October 2, 1913.

Rehearing denied October 4, 1913.

Illegality of execution. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. April *2,*1912.

*J. D. Kilpatrick*and *Holbrook & Corbett,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. L. Mayson*and *W. D. Ellis Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD MOSS, #170262, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CV-784-MEF 

)

OFFICER CASEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff, Harold Moss [“Moss”], filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on

September 1, 2006. In this complaint, Moss challenges actions taken against him during

his confinement at the Montgomery Pre-Release Center. The court recently ascertained

that Moss no longer resides at the last address he provided for service. The order of

procedure entered in this case specifically directed Moss to immediately inform the court

of any change in his address. Order of September 6, 2006 - Court Document No. 5 at 4-5.

As is clear from the foregoing, Moss has failed to comply with this directive and this case

cannot properly proceed in his absence. The court therefore concludes that this case is due

to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this

court. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before August 24, 2008 the parties may file objections to the

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

 handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 11 day of August, 2008. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 15 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-767-MEF-SRW

 )

VANESSA GORDON, ET AL., )

 )

DEFENDANTS. )

ORDER

Because counsel for Plaintiff has failed to cite any legal authority whatsoever for

the relief she seeks, the Motion to Continue or Suspend (Doc. # 66) is DENIED.

DONE this the 7 day of May, 2007. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 71 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: E x parte Destin Spearman

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00 73 5

- C R

Tri al court case number: 1747440

Trial court: 482nd District Court of Harris County

On January 31 , 2023, th e Court abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for the trial court to execute a certification of appellant ’ s right to appeal that complied with

Texas R ule of Appellate Procedure 25 .2(d) and i ndicated whether appellant ha d a r ight to appeal

from the trial court ’ s September 29, 2022 order de nying h is app lication for writ of hab eas

corpus.

On February 7, 2023, the trial court cler k filed a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing a certification o f appellant ’ s ri ght to appeal indic ating that a ppellant “ has the right to appeal from th[e] [trial] [c]ourt ’ s order denying relief. ”

Accordingly, we REINST ATE th is appeal on the Court ’ s active docket.

T he State ’ s appellee ’ s b rief, if any, is due to be filed seven days from the date of this

order

. 1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____ /s/ Julie Countiss

________  Acting individually Acting for the Cou rt

Date: February 14 , 202 3

1 The State ’s appellee ’ s brief was previously due on January 25, 2023. In its motio n to abate, t he State requested a briefing deadline of seven days from the date of reinstatement

.
§ 501.102 OFE evaluation of the record, decision and order for modification or rescission of a rule or order. ( a ) OFE will consider the entire administrative record in its evaluation of the decision and order for modification or rescission of a rule or order. OFE may investigate and corroborate any statement in the petition or related documents and may utilize in its evaluation any relevant facts obtained by its investigations. OFE may solicit or accept submissions from third persons relevant to any request under this subpart and all interested persons will be afforded an opportunity to respond to these submissions. OFE may, in its discretion and on its own initiative, convene a conference, if it considers that a conference will advance its evaluation of the request.
( b ) *Criteria.* Except where modification or rescission of a rule or order is initiated by OFE, OFE's decision to rescind or modify a rule or order will be based on a determination that there are significantly changed circumstances with respect to the applicability of a particular prohibition or exemption to the requester. OFE believes that there may be “significantly changed circumstances”, if: ( 1 ) Significant material facts are subsequently discovered which were not known and could not have been known to the petitioner or to OFE at the time of the original proceeding;
( 2 ) A law, regulation, interpretation, ruling, order or decision on appeal that was in effect at the time of the proceeding upon which the rule or order is based and which, if it had been made known to OFE, would have been relevant to the proceeding and would have substantially altered the outcome is subsequently discovered; or
( 3 ) There has been a substantial change in the facts or circumstances upon which an outstanding and continuing order was based, which change occurred during the interval between issuance of the order and the date of filing of the request under this subpart, and was caused by force or circumstances beyond the requester's control.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

§ 4.510 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by August 24, 1987, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part, and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including disabled persons or organizations representing disabled persons, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, until three years following the completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified, and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
#### § 60.64 Notice to States.

If the Governor and legislature of a State have jointly designated on their behalf a single person or entity to receive notice and information from the Commission under this part, the Commission will provide such notice and information to the jointly designated person or entity instead of the Governor and legislature separately.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

November 28, 2006

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

To: All Counsel of Record

Re: Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.

v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-00790-VPM

The above-styled case has been reassigned to Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.

Please note that the case number is now 2:06-cv-00790-WC. 

This new case number should be used on all future correspondence and pleadings in this

action.

 

Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 8 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 193 

Protecting health coverage for all Americans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2017 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. RASKIN, Mrs. TORRES, 

Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. PAYNE, 

Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, Ms. EDDIE

BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. CLAY, Mr. 

MEEKS, Mr. SOTO, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, and 

Mr. KHANNA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Protecting health coverage for all Americans. 

Whereas before the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, over 3,000 Americans died each 

month due to lack of health care; 

Whereas the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has 

expanded health insurance to over 20 million Americans; 

Whereas thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act, for the first time, over 90 percent of Americans 

have health insurance; 

Whereas every health plan is strengthened by the protections 

of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 193 IH 

(1) adult children can stay on their parent’s health 

plans until they turn 26; 

(2) insurance plans can no longer refuse coverage to 

millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions; 

(3) annual and lifetime caps on the amount paid for 

health care; and 

(4) health care plans now need to meet basic minimum standards of coverage; and 

Whereas according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 

Office, a repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act would result in— 

(1) 18 million Americans losing their health care; 

(2) health insurance premiums increasing by more 

than 20 percent; 

(3) the Federal budget deficit increasing by $137 

billion in a decade; and 

(4) 3 million jobs being lost nationwide; Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that any replacement for the Patient Protec3 tion and Affordable Care Act must— 

4 (1) keep costs to health care consumers at or 

5 below their current rates; and 

6 (2) keep the uninsured rate at or below its cur7 rent level. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 394 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 394

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 28, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for 
our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy. All points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 7 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 1
(May 19, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant, v State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Respondent, and Village of Pleasantville et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Motions for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Was the order of this court, which reversed the order of Special Term granting motions for partial summary judgment, correct as a matter of law?” Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.