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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4486 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4486

To prohibit any executive branch agency from entering into any service 
 contract if the services procured under the contract can be performed 
              at a lower cost by employees of the agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1994

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any executive branch agency from entering into any service 
 contract if the services procured under the contract can be performed 
              at a lower cost by employees of the agency.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ENTERING CERTAIN SERVICE CONTRACTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--An agency in the executive branch of the Federal 
Government may not enter into a service contract, unless--
            (1) the agency has determined--
                    (A) the total cost to the Federal Government of 
                procuring services under the contract; and
                    (B) the total cost to the Federal Government of 
                having those services performed by employees of the 
                agency; and
            (2) the costs determined under paragraph (1)(A) are less 
        than the costs determined under paragraph (1)(B).
    (b) Cost Comparison.--The comparison of costs required by 
subsection (a)(2) shall be made pursuant to the criteria set forth in 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, as in effect on the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to 
contracts awarded after the date of enactment of this Act.
    (d) Service Contract Defined.--For the purposes of this section, 
the term ``service contract'' has the meaning given such term in part 
37 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

                                      <all>
```
#### §§ 24.302-24.309 [Reserved]
#### LEWIS DICKERMAN *v.*D. F. CHAPMAN.

*Parol Evidence. Judgment Lost. Presumption.*

In an action of book account the defendant claimed that some part of the plaintiff’s account was merged in a judgment; that the judgment was rendered by a justice of the peace ; that the justice had deceased ; that there was no record nor files of the judgment in the county clerk’s office or the possession of the administrator. *Held,*that parol evidence was admissible to prove such facts ; and that it would he presumed that the justice made a record of the judgment.

Book Account. Heard on an auditor’s report, December Term, 1881, Powers, J., presiding. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the sum found due by the auditor. Exceptions by plaintiff. The defendant claimed, and the auditor allowed him to prove by parol evidence, that some part of the plaintiff’s account was merged in a judgment. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*Lamb Tarbell,*for the plaintiff. •

The record is the only evidence by which a judgment can be proved. 1 D. Chip. 115; 2 Phil. Ev. (Ed. 1859) 155 ; 9 Am. Law Reg. 384; 12 Yt. 431; 13 Yt. 9; 18 Yt. 594; 17 Yt. 337; 6 Yt. 541; 5 Mass. 547; 12 Mass. 400; 1 Swift Dig. 759.

/S'. *B. Eelard,*for the defendant.

We show that there was a judgment and execution ; and we have shown loss of the record and so having shown its loss, we are permitted to show its contents. *Maxham*v. Place, 46 Yt. 434; 34 Yt. 97; 23 Yt. 581.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Taft, J.

The auditor found from parol evidence, that a judgment against the defendant was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in January, 1856, by a justice of the peace; that the justice was dead? and had been for more than two months ; that there was no record *507of said judgment, or files in such case, in the county clerk’s office, or in the hands of the administrator of the estate of the justice. Whether the admission of such evidence was error, is the only question in the case for this court to pass upon. The auditor found that a judgment was rendered ; that an execution was issued ; and that payments were made upon it. From these facts we think the legitimate presumption is, that a record of the judgment was made. The plaintiff insists that there was no proof of the existence of such a record; that it is necessary that it should first appear that a record was actually made, and that the court cannot presume thaone was made. The judgment having , been rendered, it was the duty of the justice to have made a record. “ All persons are presumed to have duly discharged any obligation imposed on them, either by written or unwritten law.” Best on Ev. s. 348. And especially is this* true of public officers. The law therefore presumes that the record was made, and its loss having been shownt the evidence was properly admitted. *Maxham*v. Place, 46 Vt. 434. Judgment affirmed.
#### State Bank of Crawford, appellee, v. John Owens, appellant, et al.

Filed June 19, 1895.

No. 5680.

Review: Sufficiency of Evidence. This appeal presents no question of law. The evidence examined, and *held*to support the finding of the district court, and its decree affirmed.

Appeal from the district court of Dawes county. Heard below before Bartow, J.

*Spargur & Fisher,*for appellant.

*Albert W. Crites*and *D. B. Jenckes, contra.*

Ragan, C.

This is an appeal from a decree of the district court of Dawes county rendered in an ordinary action of real estate mortgage foreclosure. The appeal presents no question of law whatever. We have examined the record, and ascef*535tained that the finding of the district court is supported by sufficient evidence. Its decree is, therefore,

Affirmed.
# Comments on: 20-2099: DUNCAN v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(b)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such a patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         August 7, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hameed Khan, PHD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Heath, and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 23, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 00-16612 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donald Lee FEREBE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7875.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Donald Lee Ferebe, Appellant pro se. James G. Warwick, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*38Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Donald Lee Ferebe seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fer-ebe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2017

No. 04-17-00754-CR

EX PARTE Andrew BRIGHAM

Original Habeas Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On November 16, 2017, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking 

relief from his confinement for pending criminal charges. By order dated November 20, 2017, 

this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition and dismissed the 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. This court’s opinion issued on November 22, 2017.

On November 27, 2017, relator filed two additional documents this court has construed 

as pro se supplemental petitions for writ of habeas corpus seeking the same relief sought in the 

petition filed on November 16, 2017. For the reasons stated in this court’s opinion of November 

22, 2017, relator’s supplemental petitions for writ of habeas corpus are DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2017.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2016CR11697, 2016CR11698, 2016CR7125B, and 

2016CR10420, styled The State of Texas v. Andrew Brigham, pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar 

County, Texas, the Honorable Norma Gonzales presiding.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-2019: JONES-BEY v. CHEN [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DpoD74xYab\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-2019-jones-bey-v-chen-order-22-2019-order-11-15-2022_2033540\/\">22-2019: JONES-BEY v. CHEN [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-2019-jones-bey-v-chen-order-22-2019-order-11-15-2022_2033540\/embed\/#?secret=DpoD74xYab\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2019: JONES-BEY v. CHEN [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"DpoD74xYab\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: JONES-BEY v. CHEN [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2019 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5243.

#### Roberts *v.*Marshall, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
791 A.2d 196

#### IN THE MATTER OF EVELYN PADIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 10, 2002.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court on the petition of respondent, EVELYN PADIN, for review of the *2decision of the Disciplinary Review Board in DRB 00-296, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the petition for review is granted and the admonition issued by the Disciplinary Review Board on March 6, 2001, is hereby vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that the complaint docketed as VI-98-49E be dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
```

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.

                                                 State of                    Percent by
Corporate Name                                   Organization                National Auto Credit, Inc.
--------------                                   ------------                --------------------------

ARAC, Inc. (1)                                   Delaware                    100%
Audience Response Systems, Inc.                  New York                    100%
Campus Group Companies, Inc.                     New York                    100%
Illumine Entertainment, Inc.                     Delaware                    100%
NAC, Inc. (2)                                    Delaware                    100%
National Cinemas, Inc.                           Delaware                    100%
OMI Business Communications, Inc.                New York                    100%
ZoomLot Corporation                              Delaware                    100%

         All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of NAC. NAC also has various subsidiaries which, when
considered in the aggregate, do not constitute a significant subsidiary.

(1)  Formerly operated under the name of Agency Rent-A-Car and its divisions,
     Altra Auto Rental, Automate Auto Rental and National Motors.

(2)  NAC, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARAC, Inc.
```
#### § 302-14.7 Are there tax consequences when I receive a home marketing incentive payment?

Yes, the home marketing incentive payment is considered income. Consequently, you will be taxed, and your agency will withhold income and employment taxes, on the home marketing incentive payment. You will not, however, receive a withholding tax allowance (WTA) to offset the withholding on your home marketing incentive payment, nor will you receive a relocation income tax (RIT) allowance payment for substantially all of your Federal, state and local income taxes on the incentive payment.
#### § 0.273 Actions taken under delegated authority.

In discharging the authority conferred by § 0.271, the Chief, Office of Economics and Analytics, shall establish working relationships with other Bureaus and staff Offices to assure the effective coordination of actions taken in the analysis of regulatory impacts, including assessments of paperwork burdens and initial and final regulatory flexibility assessments.

[83 FR 63076, Dec. 7, 2018]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Circuit Judge Wallach to Assume Senior Status on May 31, 2021 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"W3RhayGjCb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/circuit-judge-wallach-to-assume-senior-status-on-may-31-2021\/\">Circuit Judge Wallach to Assume Senior Status on May 31, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/circuit-judge-wallach-to-assume-senior-status-on-may-31-2021\/embed\/#?secret=W3RhayGjCb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Circuit Judge Wallach to Assume Senior Status on May 31, 2021” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"W3RhayGjCb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Honorable Evan J. Wallach has announced he will retire from active service and assume senior status, effective May 31, 2021. Judge Wallach has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since November 18, 2011, following his appointment by President Barack Obama and confirmation by the Senate.\u00a0 Prior to his appointment, […]"}
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      State of                              Percent by
                            Corporate Name                          Organization                    National Auto Credit, Inc.
                    -------------------------------        -------------------------------        -------------------------------

<S>                 <C>                                               <C>                                     <C>
                    ARAC, Inc. (1)                                    Delaware                                 100%

                    NAC Capital, Inc.                                 Delaware                                 100%

                    NAC, Inc. (2)                                     Delaware                                 100%

                    National Cinemas, Inc.                            Delaware                                 100%

                    ZoomLot Corporation                               Delaware                                 100%
</TABLE>


     All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company. The Company also has various subsidiaries
which, when considered in the aggregate, do not constitute a significant
subsidiary.

     (1)  Formerly operated under the name of Agency Rent-A-Car and its
          divisions, Altra Auto Rental, Automate Auto Rental and National
          Motors.

     (2)  NAC, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARAC, Inc.


                                       87
Exhibit
      23.1




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-8 (Nos.333-80450, 333-91863 and 333-126924) and Forms S-3 (Nos.
      333-128160-01, 333-39365-01, 333-3526-01, and 33-99736-01) of Tanger Properties
      Limited Partnership of our report dated February 27, 2007 relating to the
      financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment
      of
      the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in
      this Form 10-K.







/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Greensboro,
      North Carolina


February
      27, 2007