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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3753 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3753

  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that certain 
medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs have physical 
    locations for the disposal of controlled substances medications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2020

 Mr. Braun (for himself and Mr. Young) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that certain 
medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs have physical 
    locations for the disposal of controlled substances medications.

    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 ``VA Directly Returning Opioid 
Prescriptions Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL 
              FACILITIES TO HAVE PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF 
              CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MEDICATIONS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure 
that each covered Department medical facility has a physical location 
where patients may dispose of controlled substances medications.
    (b) Covered Department Medical Facility.--In this section, the term 
``covered Department medical facility'' means a medical facility of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs with--
            (1) an on-site pharmacy; or
            (2) a law enforcement officer.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 206

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 206 appear at 84 FR 15925, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 206.2 Exemption from schedule filing.

All air carriers are hereby exempted from the requirements of section 41902(b) of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, which provides that each air carrier must periodically provide the Department and the U.S. Postal Service a listing of all of its regularly operated aircraft schedules and schedule changes, showing for each schedule the points served and the departure and arrival times.

[Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40101, Sept. 2, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 43524, Aug. 22, 1995]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4091 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4091

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
 To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority 
for fiscal year 2020 for increased payments for temporary assistance to 
 United States citizens returned from foreign countries, and for other 
                                purposes.

    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 ``Emergency Aid for Returning 
Americans Affected by Coronavirus Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020.
    (a) In General.--Section 1113(d) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1313(d)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2017 and 2018'' 
and all that follows through the period and inserting ``fiscal year 
2020, the total amount of such assistance provided during such fiscal 
year shall not exceed $10,000,000.''.
    (b) Emergency Designation.--
        (1) In general.--The amounts provided by the amendment made by 
    this section are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
    section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 
    933(g)).
        (2) Designation in senate.--In the Senate, this section and the 
    amendment made by this section are designated as an emergency 
    requirement pursuant to section 4112(a) of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th 
    Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
    2018.
SEC. 3. LIMIT ON DIRECT CONTACT WITH REPATRIATED INDIVIDUALS DURING 
COVID-19 EMERGENCY PERIOD.
    During the emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B) of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(g)(1)(B)), in providing 
temporary assistance under section 1113 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1313), 
no employee of the Administration for Children and Families of the 
Department of Health and Human Services shall have direct, in-person 
contact with an individual specified in section 1113(a)(1) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)), except in the case of a uniformed member of the 
Regular Corps or the Ready Reserve Corps of the Commissioned Corps of 
the Public Health Service (as described in section 203 of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204)) in an active duty status who, as 
determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has--
        (1) received appropriate training on infection prevention and 
    control; and
        (2) access to appropriate personal protective equipment.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
180716 ORD GRANTING MASTER LINK EXT OF TIME VERSION JULY 16, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et 

al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUESTING AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 3516)

The Court has received and reviewed the Unopposed Motion for Short Extension 

of Time to File Joint Report about Meeting (Docket Entry No. 3516, the “Motion”) filed by 

counsel to Master Link Corporation (the “Movant”). The Motion is hereby granted. The parties 

shall filed the joint status report no later than July 25, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard 

Time).

This Order resolves docket entry no. 3516 in Case No. 17-3283.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number 

and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, 

are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement 

System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3524 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 11:57:29 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
## NUMBER 13

- 2 4

- 001 44

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRISCILLA VACULIN NALL

AND BRICE VINCENT MACALUSO JR.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 130TH DISTRICT COURT

OF MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

On March 5, 2024 , appellant filed a notice of appeal

. On March 5, 2024 , the C lerk

of the Court requested appellant to remit a $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date

of the notice. On March 21, 2024 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant he was

delinquent in remitting the $ 20 5.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant the

appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not p aid within ten days from the date

of th e letter. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(c).2 Appellant has not paid the filing fee nor otherwise responded to the notice s from

the C lerk of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified;

accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(c).

Furthermore, appellant’s fourth amended motion for emergency relief to subpoena

bank records is denied as moot.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

16th day of May , 202 4
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4125 

To extend the paycheck protection program and to provide supplemental 

loans to recipients of loans under the paycheck protection program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To extend the paycheck protection program and to provide 

supplemental loans to recipients of loans under the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paycheck Protection 

5 Program Extension and Modification Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENDING AUTHORITY FOR COMMITMENTS FOR 

7 THE PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

8 Section 1102(b) of title I of division A of the 

9 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (PubVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:54 Jul 12, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4125.IS S4125

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4125 IS

1 lic Law 116–136) is amended, in the matter preceding 

2 paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘June 30, 2020’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘December 31, 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PPP LOANS. 

5 Section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 

6 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(T) ADDITIONAL LOANS.—An eligible re9 cipient of a covered loan before the date of en10 actment of the Paycheck Protection Program 

11 Extension and Modification Act of 2020 may 

12 apply for and receive an additional loan in an 

13 amount equal to the covered loan, which shall 

14 be— 

15 ‘‘(i) used for allowable expenses in ac16 cordance with subparagraph (F); 

17 ‘‘(ii) guaranteed under this paragraph 

18 in the same manner as a covered loan; and 

19 ‘‘(iii) eligible for loan forgiveness in 

20 the same manner as a covered loan under 

21 section 1106 of the CARES Act (15 

22 U.S.C. 9005).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00199 - CR

VICTOR MARTINEZ APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- The trial court granted Appellant Victor Martinez’s motion for new trial after adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. An order granting a motion fo r new trial restores a case to its position before the former trial, and there is no longer a judgment in place. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b). Absent a judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (holding that appellate court generally has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only when there has been a judgment of conviction). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdicti on. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Hicks v. State , Nos. 05

- 11

- 01341

- CR, 05

- 11

- 01342

- CR, 2011 WL 6119122, *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 9, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal after trial court adjudicated appellant’s guil t but then granted new trial). PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GA BRIEL , J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 1 , 2013
1. The plat of the survey of an island in Island Lake, Township 47 North, Range 29 West, Fourth Principal Meridian, Minnesota, accepted on January 6, 2000, will be officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on February 22, 2000. The tract shown below describes the island omitted from the original survey.

## Fourth Principal Meridian, Minnesota 

T. 47 N. R. 29 W. 

Tract No. 37.

                    2. Tract No. 37 is firm land rising 10 ft. above the ordinary high water mark. The soil has evolved from glacial till parent material and is similar to the soil found on the adjacent uplands. Numerous stones were located along the southerly face of a small ridge which extends East and West along the center of the island. Tree species consist of basswood, birch, oak and pine, ranging in size from 3 to 18 inches in diameter, with a maximum age of 100+ years. The ground cover consists of alder, willow and native grasses on the southerly, easterly and westerly shore line.                     Start Printed Page 2639

3. The present water level of the lake compares favorably with that of the original meander line; therefore, the elevation and upland character of the island along with the depth and width of the lake between the adjacent upland and the island are considered evidence that the island did exist in 1858, the year Minnesota was admitted to the Union. The original survey in 1872 did not note the presence of this island. 

4. Tract No. 37 is more than 50 percent upland in character within the interpretation of the Swamp and Overflow Act of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519) as extended to the State of Minnesota under the Act of March 12, 1860 (12 Stat. 3). Therefore, the island is held to be public land. 

5. The survey was requested by the Assistant Field Manager, Division of Natural Resource Management, under the authority of Section 211 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1721) and the Minnesota Public Lands Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-442 (104 Stat. 1020). 

6. Except for valid existing rights, this island will not be subject to application, petition, location or selection under any public law until February 22, 2000. 

7. Interested parties protesting the determination that these islands are public land of the United States, must present valid proof showing that the island in question did not exist at the time of statehood or that it was attached to the mainland at the time of the original survey. Such protests must be submitted in writing to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., February 22, 2000. 

Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the appropriate fee.

 Dated: January 6, 2000 

Stephen G. Kopach, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. 00-111 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
§ 17.9 Protective orders. ( a ) The ODRA may issue protective orders addressing the treatment of protected information, including protected information in electronic form, either at the request of a party or upon its own initiative. Such information may include proprietary, confidential, or source-selection-sensitive material, or other information the release of which could result in a competitive advantage to one or more firms.
( b ) The terms of the ODRA's standard protective order may be altered to suit particular circumstances, by negotiation of the parties, subject to the approval of the ODRA. The protective order establishes procedures for application for access to protected information, identification and safeguarding of that information, and submission of redacted copies of documents omitting protected information.
( c ) After a protective order has been issued, counsel or consultants retained by counsel appearing on behalf of a party may apply for access to the material under the order by submitting an application to the ODRA, with copies furnished simultaneously to all parties. The application shall establish that the applicant is not involved in competitive decision-making for any firm that could gain a competitive advantage from access to the protected information and that the applicant will diligently protect any protected information received from inadvertent disclosure. Objections to an applicant's admission shall be raised within two (2) days of the application, although the ODRA may consider objections raised after that time for good cause.
( d ) Any violation of the terms of a protective order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to removal of the violator from the protective order and reporting of the violator to his or her bar association(s), and the taking of other actions as the ODRA deems appropriate. Additional civil or criminal penalties may apply.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 8, 2019 Session **IN RE RAESHAD B. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sumner County**  **No. 2017 -** **AD -**  **11 Louis W. Oliver, Chancellor** 

**___________________________________ No. M2018**  **- 00238** **- COA** **- R3**  **- PT** 

**___________________________________** RICHARD H. D INKINS , J., concurring. I concur in the result reached in this very difficult case. Our holding that the record does not clearly and convincingly establish the grounds for termination means that we do not reach the question of what is in Raeshad’s best interest. The dismissal of the termination proceeding means that Mother and Raeshad retain the parent- child relationship and does not compel his return to her custody. Neither does it necessarily lead to the lack of involvement by the Guardians in his life; it is clear that Raeshad and the Guardians, along with their other children, have formed familial bonds. The record is not clear as to the nature and status of the juvenile court proceeding, which was apparently initiated as an emergency petition for protective custody; we do not know if there will be further court involvement between the parties. As this appeal did not seek review of an order of the juvenile court, we are unable to remand the case to that court. It also appears from the record that neither Jonah’s Journey nor its successor agency is involved in this situation; the opinion notes that Mrs. B. stated “[i]t was up to the mother and the caregivers to work things out.” As they go forth, I encourage the parties to consider Raeshad’s best interest and, as necessary, seek the guidance of the Department of Children’s Services, the juvenile court (to the extent it has resources available), or some other entity that is able to assist the parties.

______________________________________ RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) v. ) NO. 4:09-CV-02453-CW ) ) LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as ) Administrator of the Environmental ) Protection Agency ) ) Defendant )

NOTICE OF STIPULATED EXTENSION TO CONSENT DECREE DEADLINE Paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree entered in this case (Docket Entry 26) provides that the deadlines in the Consent Decree may by extended by up to 60 days by written stipulation of the parties to the Consent Decree filed with the Court. No action by the Court is required for such an extension. The parties have agreed to extend one of the deadlines in paragraph 6 of the Consent

Decree. Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree, defendant Lisa Jackson, in her official capacity as EPA Administrator, and plaintiff Wild Earth Guardians hereby stipulate that the date by which EPA must either approve a SIP, promulgate a FIP, or approve a SIP in part with promulgation of a partial FIP for Ca lifornia to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C.

Case4:09-cv-02453-CW Document36 Filed07/07/11 Page1 of 32 § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interfering with measures in other states related to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality is extended to July 29, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, July 7, 2011 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /S/ Norman L. Rave, Jr. Norman L. Rave. Jr., Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23986 Washington, DC 20026-3986 Telephone : (202) 616-7568 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Email: norman.rave@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendant /S/ James J. Tutchton James J. Tutchton (CA Bar No. 150908) WildEarth Guardians 1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 301 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 573-4898 Email: jtutchton@wildearthguardians.org Case4:09-cv-02453-CW Document36 Filed07/07/11 Page2 of 33 Of Counsel: Robert Ukeiley Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 435R Chestnut Street, Suite 1 Berea, KY 40403 Tel: (859) 986-5402 Fax: (859) 618-1017 E-mail: rukeiley@igc.org Counsel for Plaintiff Case4:09-cv-02453-CW Document36 Filed07/07/11 Page3 of 3
VANJEVENTERBlACKLLP David P. Ferrelldferrell@vanblk.com www. vanblk.com 434 Fayetteville Street • Suite 2000 ·Raleigh, NC 27601 • 0:919.754.1171 •F: 919.754.1317 September 15, 2015 U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Petition to Amend FAA Exemption No. 11508 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0434 Dear Siror Madam: The FAA recently granted the GSC Surveying, Inc. ("GSC") Exemption No. 11508 under Section 333ofthe Modernization and Reform Actof 2012 to allow itsuseof Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("UASs") in commercial operations with its clients, such as precision aerial surveys, including inthe areas of construction, agriculture, mining, scientific studies, wildlife monitoring, forestry, and oil, power and gas industries. This petition isforan amendment to GSC's exemption, namely to operate an additional type of UAS. GSC would liketoadd the following UAS toour exemption: DJI Spreading Wings S900. The DJI Spreading Wings S900 ("S900") meets all ofthe criteria ofGSC's Exemption No. 11508. The FAA previously determined the airworthiness ofthe S900 in Exemption No. 12044 (Shore Aerial Aviation Services, LLC). GSC will comply with allofthe conditions and limitations imposed by Exemption No. 11508 and will update and maintain the technical manuals forthe additional aircraft. There has

been no change inthe conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. We are prepared to modify or amend any partofthis request to satisfy the need foran equivalent level of safety. Should you have any questions or require any additional information please contact the undersigned. Thank youfor your attention tothis matter. Sincerely, VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP**~f** I.t··;.: ! ( David P. Ferrell Counsel for GSC Surveying, Inc. 4812-2396-8550, v.I 1 Attorneys t\t Law Since 1883 VanBiacklaw.com