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

Private Calendar No. 4

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1009

[Report No. 104–546]

For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 21, 1995

Mr. DAVIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

MAY 1, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

A BILL

For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

4 (a) PAYMENT.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

5 pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap6 propriated, to Lloyd B. Gamble of Fairfax, Virginia, the

7 sum of $253,488.
2

HR 1009 RH

1 (b) BASIS.—The payment required by subsection (a)

2 shall be to compensate Lloyd B. Gamble for the injuries

3 sustained by him as a result of the administration to him,

4 without his knowledge, of lysergic acid diethylamide by

5 United States Army personnel in 1957.

6 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

7 The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in

8 full satisfaction of all claims Lloyd B. Gamble may have

9 against the United States for any injury described in such

10 section.

11 SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

12 Upon payment of the sum referred to in section 1,

13 Lloyd B. Gamble shall not be eligible for any compensa14 tion or benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs

15 or the Department of Defense for any injury described in

16 such section.

17 SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

18 It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10

19 percent of the amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be

20 paid to or received by any agent or attorney for any service

21 rendered to Lloyd B. Gamble in connection with the bene22 fits provided by this Act. Any person who violates this sec23 tion shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject

24 to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States

25 Code.

Private Calendar No. 

4

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1009

[Report No. 104–546]

A BILL

For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

MAY 1, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and

ordered to be printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                       3,855
<SECURITIES>                                                     7
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  361
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   268
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                       3,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                               2,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               4,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   4,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 4,093
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               499
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               (1)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                349
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            349
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   349
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 219

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the issuance under title 
   VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of administrative guidelines 
           applicable to religious harassment in employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 1994

Mr. Brown submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the issuance under title 
   VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of administrative guidelines 
           applicable to religious harassment in employment.

Whereas the liberties protected by our Constitution include religious liberty 
        protected by the first amendment;
Whereas citizens of the United States profess the beliefs of almost every 
        conceivable religion;
Whereas Congress has historically protected religious expression even from 
        governmental action not intended to be hostile to religion;
Whereas the Supreme Court has written that ``the free exercise of religion 
        means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever 
        religious doctrine one desires'';
Whereas the Supreme Court has firmly settled that under our Constitution the 
        public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the 
        content of the ideas is offensive to some;
Whereas Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to 
        restate and make clear again our intent and position that religious 
        liberty is and should forever be granted protection from unwarranted and 
        unjustified government intrusions and burdens;
Whereas the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has written proposed 
        guidelines to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, published in 
        the Federal Register on October 1, 1993, that expand the definition of 
        religious harassment beyond established legal standards set forth by the 
        Supreme Court, and that may result in the infringement of religious 
        liberty; and
Whereas such guidelines do not appropriately resolve issues related to religious 
        liberty and religious expression in the workplace: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, for purposes of 
issuing final regulations under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 in connection with the proposed guidelines published by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 
51266), the Commission should withdraw religion as a category covered 
by the proposed guidelines, hold public hearings, and receive 
additional public comment before issuing similar new regulations.

                                 <all>
```
# LI2020047EN.01000901.xml

| 20.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 47/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 47/9

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/118 of 27 January 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2020
  )

On page 57, the Annex, Part (1) (amending Part A of the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775), fourth entry, heading:

for:

| ‘4. | AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’, |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’,

read:

| ‘4. | AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’; |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’;

on page 62, the Annex, Part (2) (amending Part B of the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775), first entry, heading:

for:

| ‘1. | AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’, |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’,

read:

| ‘1. | AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’. |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7486

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

THOMAS SWINNEY, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:05-cr-00179-PJM-4; 8:07-cv-02144-PJM) 

Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Swinney, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Salem, Gina Simms, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Swinney seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & 

Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swinney has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 509.102 Applicable provisions of law.

(a) *General.* The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides in part as follows:

# Subtitle A—Income Taxes

---

Sec. 894. *Income exempt under treaty.* Income of any kind, to the extent required by any treaty obligation of the United States, shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle.

---

# Subtitle F—Procedure and Administration

---

Sec. 7805. *Rules and regulations*—(a) *Authorization.* Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary or his delegate shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

(b) *Retroactivity of regulations or rulings.* The Secretary or his delegate may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect.

---

(b) *Internal Revenue Code of 1939.* Any reference in §§ 509.101 to 509.122 to any provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 shall, where applicable, be deemed also to refer to the corresponding provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

(c) *Effective date of regulations.* Pursuant to sections 894 and 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Article XIX of the convention, and other provisions of the internal revenue laws, §§ 509.101 to 509.122 are hereby prescribed effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1951. All regulations inconsistent herewith are modified accordingly.
#### § 1026.300 General.

Futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities are subject to the reporting requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities should also refer to subpart C of part 1010 of this chapter for reporting requirements contained in that subpart which apply to futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities.
DRAFT (FOCUS 7/10/03) 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0633 ENGINEER: Macek/CLH 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: 

CRSS (6/30/03): 

Chemical Category: 

VP: torr @25EC 

S-H2O: g/L 

MW: 

Phys State: 

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (7/1/03): 

Ground Water: negligible 

Health: 1 (No exposures needed) 

Eco: 3 (All releases to water) 

PBT: P1B1T1 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0633 

ASSUMPTIONS: 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 03-0633
§ 56.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer. ( a ) *In general.* For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund of tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D see § 1.6694-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78460, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### Jackal Holdings, LLC, Appellant, v JSS Holding Corp. et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 917]

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated February 18, 2005, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court’s role on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) was to determine whether the counterclaim stated a cause of action. “The motion must be denied if from the pleadings’ four corners ‘factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law’ ... In furtherance of this task, we liberally construe the [counterclaim] . . ., and accept as true the facts alleged [therein] and any submissions in opposition to the dismissal motion. . . . We also accord [the nonmoving party] the benefit of every possible favorable inference” *(511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co.,*98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002] [citations omitted]; *see Polonetsky v Better Homes Depot,*97 NY2d 46, 54 [2001]). Applying these principles, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion *(see*CPLR 3019 [a]; *Dresser v Mercantile Trust Co.,*124 App Div 891, 893-894 [1908]; *cf. ICC Bridgeport Ltd. Partnership v Primrose Dev. Corp.,*221 AD2d 417 [1995]).

*436The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ, concur.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Appellate case name: Kaylen Dewayne Simmons v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-17-00684-CR, 01-17-00685-CR

Trial court case numbers: 11-CR-3445, 12-CR-2519

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

The motion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Richard Hightower

Acting for the Court

En banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Kelly, 

Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and Countiss.

Date: March 5, 2019
#### § 51.10 Refund claims.

Any claim for a refund of the fee must be made by the person that paid the fee to the government and must be made on Form 843, “Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement,” in accordance with the instructions for that form.

[T.D. 9684, 79 FR 43645, July 28, 2014]
AARON COREY DAVIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4596

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed July 7, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. J. Bradford Stetson , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE

, SWANSON

, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1070

AN ACT

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam

‘‘Trinity Lake’’.in the Central Valley project, California, as
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1070

AN ACT

To designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the

Central Valley project, California, as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF TRINITY LAKE.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The reservoir created by Trinity

5 Dam in the Central Valley project, California, and des6 ignated as ‘‘Clair Engle Lake’’ by Public Law 88–662 (78

7 Stat. 1093) is hereby redesignated as ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.
2

•HR 1070 EH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula2 tion, document, record, map, or other paper of the United

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

4 be considered to be a reference to ‘‘Trinity Lake’’.

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Public Law 88–662

6 (78 Stat. 1093) is repealed.

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
Fourth Department,

November, 2005

(November 10, 2005)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Emm, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 880]

*984Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered November 5, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (four counts) and petit larceny (four counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of four counts each of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is unpreserved for our review *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Loomis,*17 AD3d 1019 [2005]; *People v Webb,*286 AD2d 899, 899-900 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 659 [2001]) and is without merit in any event. Contrary to the contention of defendant, his terse answers to questioning by County Court do not indicate that he lacked an understanding of the nature and consequences of his plea *(see People v Thomas,*169 AD2d 515, 516 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 975 [1991]). The record establishes that defendant admitted the essential elements of the eight counts of the indictment and thus his factual allocution is legally sufficient *(see Loomis,*17 AD3d at 1019-1020).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the People met their initial burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct in the pretrial identification procedures, and defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of proving that the procedures were unduly suggestive *(see People v Bell,*19 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2005], citing *People v Jackson,*98 NY2d 555, 559 [2002]; *see also People v Levy,*281 AD2d 984 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 831 [2001]). The court thus properly refused to suppress the in-court identification testimony of the burglary victims. All of the subjects in the photo arrays that were separately displayed to the four burglary victims are “sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer’s attention is not drawn to any one photograph in such a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection” *(People v*
      *985
      *Quinones,*5 AD3d 1093, 1093 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 646 [2004]; *see People v Rodriguez,*17 AD3d 1127, 1128-1129 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 768 [2005]). Defendant’s remaining contentions with respect to the identification testimony concern the weight to be accorded to that testimony rather than its admissibility, and thus the contentions provide no basis for reversal *(see People v Marsh,*248 AD2d 743, 745 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 856 [1998]; *People v Buchanon,*186 AD2d 864, 866 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 785 [1993]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### Adam Irwin et al., Respondents, v La Guardia Hospital et al., Defendants, and James Brown, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 549]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant James Brown appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for an extension of time to effect service upon him pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and in granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion for an extension of time to effect service upon him pursuant to CPLR 306-b *(see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95 [2001]; *Lippett v Education Alliance,*14 AD3d 430 [2005]; *Chiaro v D'Angelo,*7 AD3d 746 [2004]; *Foote v Ruiz,*289 AD2d 374 [2001]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 19.305 May I enter into a covered transaction with an excluded or disqualified person? ( a ) You as a participant may not enter into a covered transaction with an excluded person, unless the Department of the Treasury grants an exception under § 19.120.
( b ) You may not enter into any transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you have obtained an exception under the disqualifying statute, Executive order, or regulation.
www.gpo.gov

### §269c. International Statistical Bureau at The Hague; authorization of appropriations

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any sums in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, sums not exceeding $2,500 per annum to enable the United States to maintain membership in the International Statistical Bureau at The Hague, such sums to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State.

(Apr. 28, 1924, ch. 136, 43 Stat. 112.)