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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3428 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3428

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate a portion of the United States courthouse located at 2100 
 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams 
                  United States Attorney's Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3428

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate a portion of the United States courthouse located at 2100 
 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams 
                  United States Attorney's Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    (a) In General.--The building and structure described in subsection 
(b) shall be known and designated as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
States Attorney's Building''.
    (b) Description.--The building and structure to be designated under 
subsection (a) is that portion of the United States courthouse located 
at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia (known as the Albert 
V. Bryan United States Courthouse), that is attached to the courthouse 
main tower structure, described as A-Wing in the architectural plans, 
and currently occupied by the Office of the United States Attorney for 
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building and structure described in 
section 1(b) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Justin W. 
Williams United States Attorney's Building''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for appropriate identifying designations to be affixed to the 
building and structure described in section 1(b) and for an appropriate 
plaque reflecting the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and 
his service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in such 
building and structure.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING AND E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In re Prophet R onald Dwayne Whitfield

, Relator

Appellate case number s : 01

- 15

- 006 7 7

- C R

Trial court case number s : 617718

Trial court s : 174th District Court of Harris County

T he en banc court has voted to deny relator ’s motion for second rehearing and for

reconsideration en banc , construed together as his motion for en banc reconsideration of

the memorandum o pinion

, issued on August 25

, 2015 , d enying relator’s petition for writ

of mandamus

.

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting for the En Banc Court *

Date: October 8, 2015

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley,

Bland, Massengale, Brown, Huddle

, and Lloyd

.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.
**Title:****Semiannualreport to Congress [electronic resource].
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.18/2:
Item Number:0900-I-10 (online)
CGP System Number:000612998
 
 
October 1, 2007 - March 31, 2008
April 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007
October 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007
April 1, 2006 - September 30, 2006
October 1, 2005 - March 31, 2006
April 1, 2005 - September 31, 2005
October 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005
April 1, 2004 - September 30, 2004
 
 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
 
July 11, 2017******
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET.  THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         176,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               313,269
<PP&E>                                          64,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,385,910<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,867
<BONDS>                                        649,232<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              616
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     512,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,385,910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               396,203
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,362<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,008
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,964
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $984,016,000 OF COST ASSIGNED TO CONTRACTS ACQUIRED, NET.
<F2>INCLUDES $150,000,000 IN SENIOR NOTES PAYABLE AND $499,232,000 IN SUBORDINATED
NOTES PAYABLE.
<F3>REPRESENTS AMORTIZATION OF COST ASSIGNED TO CONTRACTS ACQUIRED FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.3001 Scope. ( a ) *Independent review process.* The rules and procedures set forth in this subpart apply to corporate credit unions which are subject to discretionary supervisory actions under § 704.4 of this chapter and to reclassification under § 704.4(d)(3) of this chapter to facilitate prompt corrective action, and to senior executive officers and directors of such corporate credit unions who are dismissed pursuant to a discretionary supervisory action imposed under § 704.4 of this chapter. Section 747.3002 of this subpart provides an independent appellate process to challenge such decisions.
( b ) *Notice to State officials.* With respect to a State-chartered corporate credit union under §§ 747.3002, 747.3003 and 747.3004 of this subpart, any notices, directives and decisions on appeal served upon a corporate credit union, or a dismissed director or officer thereof, by the NCUA will also be served upon the appropriate State official. Responses, requests for a hearing and to present witnesses, requests to modify or rescind a discretionary supervisory action and requests for reinstatement served upon the NCUA by a corporate credit union, or any dismissed director or officer of a corporate credit union, will also be served upon the appropriate State official.
#### § 7.1011 National bank acting as payroll issuer.

A national bank may disburse to an employee of a customer payroll funds deposited with the bank by that customer. The bank may disburse those funds by direct payment to the employee, by crediting an account in the employee's name at the disbursing bank, or by forwarding funds to another institution in which an employee maintains an account.
#### IVES *v.*THE COMMISSIONER OF INSOLVENTS.

Mortgage on equity — sale on application of vendee — assignment by an insolvent — priority enforced in chancery.

A mortgage on an equitable interest in land will attach to it as a lien.

A sale of the land by order of a Court of Chancery to complete the purchase, does take away the lien of the mortgagee, but transfers it from the land to the proceeds arising from its sale.

If the mortgagee of the equity was not a party to the bill, under which the sale was decreed, he may file a bill against the commissioner, to secure his priority in the distribution of the proceeds of the trust fund arising from the sale.

In Chancery. The bill alleges that Titus Ives borrowed of the complainant $300. He afterwards purchased five town lots- and nine acres of ground, for which he paid $400 down, including the $300 borrowed, gave his notes for $200, and took the covenant of the vender to make him a deed on the 1st of May, 1830. Two hundred dollars of the borro'wed money still remaining due to the complainant. Titus Ives gave him a mortgage on the equitable interest in the land, and filed a bill to compel the vender to convey, but while the suit was pending, he became insolvent and assigned all his property to the defendant under the law for the benefit of insolvent debtors. The suit was further prosecuted by the assignee, and a decree had for a sale by the commissioner, by virtue of which he sold for $450. Out of this sum the court ordered $160 to be paid the vender to complete the purchase, and that the remaining sum be retained for the creditors of Titus Ives. The complainant claims to have his mortgage first satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale.

The answer admits the bill true except the money alleged to be lent. There is a general replication and no proof.

Wood, J.

The first question presented is, can an equitable interest in land be the'subject of a mortgage? The respondent contends it cannot — we think it can. The next question urged is, whether the sale by order'of chancery has so changed the subject as to destroy the lien of the mortgagee? The assignee takes the property as the insolvent held it — he stancls in the debtor’s shoes. If the sale had been made by the insolvent, the question would hardly have been made. We áre then asked if there be any remedy except by application to the chancellor under the decree of sale for a distribution? Perhaps the chancellor would admit the complainant’s application for a distribution in that suit, but be that as it may, the complainant was not a party nor privy to that suit, and cannot be bound by that decree. He now applies to us in a matter of *trust*to direct the disposition of the trust fund.

Decree for the complainant.
RECORD OF CONFERENCE CALL

DATE: May 27, 2011

EPA PARTICIPANTS: OAQPS/SLPG and OTAQ

OUTSIDE EPA PARTICIPANTS: None

SUBJECT: Discussion of meeting with OMB to prepare for presentation of Regulatory Support Document 

final results and discussion on Proposed Rule for Determining Widespread Use of ORVR and Stage II 

Vapor Recovery Waiver.

DISCUSSION:

Conference call held to discuss final edits to preamble and to prepare for presentation to OMB on the 

final analysis of the financial benefits for facilities that are electing to decommission their system once 

States eliminate the Stage II requirements.

Final draft copies of proposed rule and regulatory support document transmitted via email.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23433 Filed:01/27/23 Entered:01/30/23 17:20:59 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23433 Filed:01/27/23 Entered:01/30/23 17:20:59 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3414 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3414

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a 
   single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other 
contract provisions, and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to 
a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering 
                 into a homebuilding purchase contract.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2003

 Mr. Gonzalez (for himself and Mr. Rodriguez) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a 
   single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other 
contract provisions, and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to 
a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering 
                 into a homebuilding purchase contract.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Homebuyers Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--No person engaged in the construction of new 
houses may require a purchaser to enter into a mandatory arbitration 
agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a contract for the 
purchase of a new house.
    (b) Separate Documents Required.--No person engaged in the 
construction of new houses may offer a purchaser a contract for the 
purchase of a new house which includes an agreement on mandatory 
arbitration unless such agreement is a separate document which contains 
only language pertaining to the mandatory arbitration agreement. The 
separate document containing the mandatory arbitration agreement shall 
also contain the following statement: ``By Agreeing to Binding 
Arbitration You Are Giving Up Your Right To Go To Court''.
    (c) Arbitrator.--The mandatory arbitration agreement shall not name 
an independent arbitrator and shall contain a procedure that adequately 
guarantees the purchaser an opportunity to participate in the selection 
of an arbitrator which shall occur only after a dispute regarding the 
homebuilding contract has arisen.
    (d) Enforcement.--If any person violates subsection (a), (b), or 
(c), the agreement on mandatory arbitration will be of no effect.
                                 <all>
```
No. 02-624

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2003 MT 155N

JERRY HOKE,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRIVER'S LICENSE BUREAU,

Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,

In and for the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DC-02-171,

The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Steven N. Eschenbacher, Attorney at Law, Hamilton, Montana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders,

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Jeffrey Hays, Darby City Attorney, Hamilton, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 13, 2003

 Decided: June 3, 2003

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk
2

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as

a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,

Supreme Court cause number, and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to

West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.

¶2 The Appellant, Jerry Hoke, appeals from the August 16, 2002, Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County.

Therein, the District Court determined that Marshall Larry Rose (1) had a sufficient

particularized suspicion that Hoke was in physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this

state open to the public while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the

two, and (2) was justified in requesting that Hoke submit a breath sample for analysis.

Accordingly, the District Court denied Hoke’s petition for reinstatement of his driver’s

license.

¶3 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the court’s findings of fact are supported

by substantial evidence and are, therefore, not clearly erroneous and whether the court’s

conclusions of law are correct. Ray v. Nansel, 2002 MT 191, ¶¶ 19-20, 311 Mont. 135, ¶¶

19-20, 53 P.3d 870, ¶¶ 19-20.

¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11,

2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for

memorandum opinions.
3

¶5 On the face of the briefs and the record on appeal it is manifest that the appeal is

without merit as the issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law, which the District

Court correctly interpreted, and because there is clearly sufficient evidence to support the

court’s findings of fact. Therefore, 

¶6 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ JIM REGNIER

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JIM RICE
§ 792.19 How does NCUA calculate the fees for processing my request? We will charge you our allowable direct costs, unless they are less than the cost of billing you. Direct costs means those expenditures that NCUA actually incurs in searching for, duplicating and reviewing documents to respond to a FOIA request. Search means all time spent looking for material that is responsive to a request, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of material within documents. Searches may be done manually or by computer. Search does not include modification of an existing program or system that would significantly interfere with the operation of an automated information system. Review means examining documents to determine whether any portion should be withheld and preparing documents for disclosure. Fees are subject to change as costs increase. The current rate schedule is available on our web site at *http://www.ncua.gov .* We may contract with the private sector to locate, reproduce or disseminate records. NCUA will not contract out responsibilities that FOIA requires it to discharge, such as determining the applicability of an exemption, or determining whether to waive or reduce fees. The following labor and duplication rate calculations apply: ( a ) NCUA will charge fees at the following rates for manual searches for and review of records: ( 1 ) If search/review is done by clerical staff, the hourly rate for CU-5, plus 16% of that rate to cover benefits;
( 2 ) If search/review is done by professional staff, the hourly rate for CU-13, plus 16% of that rate to cover benefits.
( b ) NCUA will charge fees at the hourly rate for CU-13, plus 16% of that rate to cover benefits, plus the hourly cost of operating the computer for computer searches for records.
( c ) NCUA will charge the following duplication fees: ( 1 ) The per-page fee for paper copy reproduction of a document is $.10;
( 2 ) The fee for documents generated by computer is the hourly fee for the computer operator, plus the cost of materials (computer paper, tapes, labels, etc.);
( 3 ) If any other method of duplication is used, NCUA will charge the actual direct cost of duplication.
[63 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 1998, as amended at 73 FR 56938, Oct. 1, 2008]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                   AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                                  UROCOR, INC.
         SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN, AS AMENDED

                ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL 18, 2000
                                      AND
                       BY THE STOCKHOLDERS JUNE 20, 2000

1. Paragraph 3 of the UroCor, Inc. Second Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option
Plan, as amended, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following:

         3. DEDICATED SHARES. The stock subject to the Options and other
         provisions of the Plan shall be shares of the Company's Common Stock,
         $.01 par value (the "Stock"). The total number of shares of Stock with
         respect to which Incentive Stock Options may be granted shall be
         2,700,000 shares. The maximum number of shares subject to Options which
         may be issued to any Optionee under this Plan during any period of
         three consecutive years is 500,000 shares. The class and aggregate
         number of shares which may be subject to the Options granted hereunder
         shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of
         Paragraph 17 hereof.

         In the event that an outstanding Option expires or is surrendered for
         any reason or terminates by reason of the death or other severance of
         employment of the Optionee, the shares of Stock allocable to the
         unexercised portion of that Option may again be subject to an Option
         under the Plan.

2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the UroCor, Inc. Second
Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan, as amended, shall continue in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms.