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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 871 

To amend section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to advance toward full Federal funding for impact aid, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2023 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. 

DURBIN, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 to advance toward full Federal 

funding for impact aid, 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. AMENDMENT TO ESEA. 

4 Section 7014 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7714) is amended by strik6 ing subsections (a) through (d) and inserting the fol7 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 871 IS

1 ‘‘(a) PAYMENTS FOR FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF

2 REAL PROPERTY.—For the purpose of making payments 

3 under section 7002, there are authorized to be appro4 priated— 

5 ‘‘(1) $90,313,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

6 ‘‘(2) $102,313,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

7 ‘‘(3) $114,313,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

8 ‘‘(4) $126,313,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

9 ‘‘(5) $138,313,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

10 ‘‘(6) $150,313,000 for fiscal year 2029. 

11 ‘‘(b) BASIC PAYMENTS; PAYMENTS FOR HEAVILY IM12 PACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—For the pur13 pose of making payments under section 7003(b), there are 

14 authorized to be appropriated— 

15 ‘‘(1) $1,632,476,041 for fiscal year 2024; 

16 ‘‘(2) $1,796,710,082 for fiscal year 2025; 

17 ‘‘(3) $1,960,944,123 for fiscal year 2026; 

18 ‘‘(4) $2,125,178,164 for fiscal year 2027; 

19 ‘‘(5) $2,289,412,205 for fiscal year 2028; and 

20 ‘‘(6) $2,453,646,246 for fiscal year 2029. 

21 ‘‘(c) PAYMENTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABIL22 ITIES.—For the purpose of making payments under sec23 tion 7003(d), there are authorized to be appropriated— 

24 ‘‘(1) $60,316,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

25 ‘‘(2) $72,316,000 for fiscal year 2025; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 871 IS

1 ‘‘(3) $84,316,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

2 ‘‘(4) $96,316,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

3 ‘‘(5) $108,316,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

4 ‘‘(6) $120,316,000 for fiscal year 2029. 

5 ‘‘(d) CONSTRUCTION.—For the purpose of carrying 

6 out section 7007, there are authorized to be appro7 priated— 

8 ‘‘(1) $22,906,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

9 ‘‘(2) $27,406,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

10 ‘‘(3) $31,906,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

11 ‘‘(4) $36,406,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

12 ‘‘(5) $40,906,000 for fiscal year 2028; and 

13 ‘‘(6) $45,406,000 for fiscal year 2029.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Order entered October 19, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01398-CR

No. 05-19-01399-CR

No. 05-19-01485-CR

DONNELL SLEDGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-56048, F17-56046, F17-5604

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for the 

purpose of appointing new appellate counsel to represent appellant in his appeal, 

including but not limited to filing a response to State’s September 2, 2021 motion 

for rehearing. On October 18, 2021, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed 

containing the trial court’s appointment of counsel. 
In light of this, we DIRECT the Clerk to remove Christie Merchant and to 

substitute Ron L. Goranson as counsel for appellant. 

We request that appellant’s counsel file appellant’s response to the State’s 

September 2, 2021 motion for rehearing WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF THIS 

ORDER. 

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
#### § 211.11 Request for release from hospitalization.

If an eligible person who is hospitalized pursuant to the Act, or his legal guardian, spouse, or adult next of kin, requests his release, such request shall be granted by the Administrator if his best interests will be served thereby, or by the head of the hospital if he is found not to be in need of hospitalization by reason of mental illness. The right of the administrator or the head of the hospital, to refuse such request and to detain him for care and treatment shall be determined in accordance with laws governing the detention, for care and treatment, of persons alleged to be mentally ill as may be in force and applicable generally in the State in which such hospital is located, but in no event shall the patient be detained more than forty-eight hours (excluding any period of time falling on a Sunday or a legal holiday observed by the courts of the State in which such hospital is located) after the receipt of such request unless within such time (a) judicial proceedings for such hospitalization are commenced or (b) a judicial extension of such time is obtained, for a period of not more than five days, for the commencement of such proceedings.
§ 2105.42 What fees for other services will you have to pay? ( a ) Although not required to provide special services, if the Agency chooses to do so as a matter of administrative discretion, it will charge you the direct costs of providing the service.
( b ) Examples of these services include providing multiple copies of the same record, converting records that are not already maintained in a requested format to the requested format, obtaining research data under § 2105.66, sending records by means other than first class mail, and conducting a search that requires the creation of a new computer search program to locate the requested records.
( c ) The Agency will notify you of these fees before they accrue and will obtain your written assurance of payment or an advance payment before proceeding (*see* §§ 2105.47 and 2105.48).
§ 1641.17 Procedures for removal. ( a ) Before removing an IPA, the OIG shall provide the IPA with a hearing in accordance with the procedures set out in §§ 1641.18 through 1641.21. Such hearing shall be held entirely by written submissions, except: ( 1 ) Additional proceedings shall be held under § 1641.21 if the debarring official finds there is a genuine dispute of material fact; and/or
( 2 ) A meeting may be held under § 1641.20(c).
( b ) A Notice of Proposed Removal normally will be accompanied by a Notice of Proposed Debarment, and the proceedings may be consolidated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                       5,716,100
<SECURITIES>                                10,224,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,862,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,537,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,471,600
<PP&E>                                       2,394,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,887,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,119,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,631,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,887,200
<SALES>                                     18,886,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,886,900
<CGS>                                        7,640,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,640,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,165,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (464,900)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,526,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,526,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,526,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Proposed Final Audit Report on John ) 

Edwards for President ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Wertii, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Conunission, do hereby certify that on July 28,2011, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on John Edwards 

for President, as recommended in the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit 

Division Memorandum dated July 22,2011. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

<4ifLt)/XlJui/filiUA 

Date' Shawn Woodhead Werth / 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00830

- CV

Rene VELA, Appellant

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY

- USA and Nabors Drilling Technologies, Inc., Appellee s

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 05

- 12283

- DCV

- AJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due January 11, 2019; however, the court granted an

extension of time until Febr uary 11. Appellant has filed a motion asking for an additional thirty

day extension of time to to file the brief.

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief due March 13, 2019 (61 days after the original due date). The court does not ordinarily gra nt extensions of more than sixty days beyond the original due date. Counsel is therefore advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally c onsider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on

this 13th day of February, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEI TH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 2555.110 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation. ( a ) *Remedial action.* If the designated agency official finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, such recipient shall take such remedial action as the designated agency official deems necessary to overcome the effects of such discrimination.
( b ) *Affirmative action.* In the absence of a finding of discrimination on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, a recipient may take affirmative action consistent with law to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted to alter any affirmative action obligations that a recipient may have under Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12086, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264.
( c ) *Self-evaluation.* Each recipient education institution shall, within one year of September 29, 2000: ( 1 ) Evaluate, in terms of the requirements of these Title IX regulations, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof concerning admission of students, treatment of students, and employment of both academic and non-academic personnel working in connection with the recipient's education program or activity;
( 2 ) Modify any of these policies and practices that do not or may not meet the requirements of these Title IX regulations; and
( 3 ) Take appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted or may have resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
( d ) *Availability of self-evaluation and related materials.* Recipients shall maintain on file for at least three years following completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall provide to the designated agency official upon request, a description of any modifications made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section and of any remedial steps taken pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 518



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV No. CV-14-258 ROBERT BOYD APPELLANT V.

MADISON COUNTY and AAC RISK MANAGEMENT APPELLEES Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION [NO. F900673] AFFIRMED

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge Robert Boyd appeals from a decision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denying his claim for benefits in connection with illnesses he alleged resulted from being exposed to mold at his workplace. He argues on appeal that the Commission’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm by issuing this memorandum opinion. When the Commission denies benefits because the claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review requires that we affirm if the Commission’s decision displays a substantial basis for the denial of relief. Wright v. Conway Freight , 2014 Ark. App. 451, ___ S.W.3d ___. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision and affirm if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. The issue is not whether we might have reached a differentCite as 2014 Ark. App. 518

result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary finding; if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion, we must affirm its decision. Id. We defer to the Commission’s findings of credibility and the resolution of conflicting evidence. Id. We may issue memorandum opinions in any or all of the following cases: (a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence; (b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm; (c) Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the only substantial issue involved; and (d) Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the supreme court. In re Memorandum Opinions , 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). This case falls within categories (a) and (b). The only substantial question on appeal is whether the Commission’s opinion was supported by sufficient evidence. Our review of the record reflects that it was. Further, the Commission’s opinion adequately and thoroughly explained the decision reached. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum opinion. Affirmed. H ARRISON and G LOVER , JJ., agree. Taylor Law Partners, LLP , by: Timothy J. Myers , for appellant. Michael E. Ryburn , for appellees.

2
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Hollaway, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
operating results of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ David Hollaway     
|David Hollaway         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2009
STATE OF ALASKA



### )

) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT )

AFFIDAVIT OF AGENCY RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENT I, Scott Sloane, Environmental Program Specialist for the Department of Environmental Conservation, being duly sworn, state the following: In compliance with AS 44.62.215, the Department of Environmental Conservation has kept a record of its use or rejection of factual or other substantive information that was submitted in writing as public comment and that was relevant to the accuracy, coverage, or other aspect of the Department of Environmental Conservation regulations in 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control, revising language related to adoption by reference dates, test methods, federal designations, regulations and requirements in the State Air Quality Control Plan, transportation conformity, and definitions related to the aforementioned changes. Date: July21, 04 Junea, Alsk Scot lane,Evironmetal ProgmSpecialst

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 21dayof Jul,2014
[NOTARY SEAL] Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My commission expires: w ith O f f ic e
#### William B. Anderson, as Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Mary E. Purkess, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*John C. Fry et al., as Executors of John C. Fry, Deceased, Respondents.

*Anderson*v. *Fry,*123 App. Div. 46, affirmed.

(Argued December 3, 1908;

decided January 5, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the upreme Court in the second judicial department, entered *516December 27, 1907, reversing an. interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action to set aside a certain deed of gift and for an accounting.

*Howard*Taylor, *William Williams*and *William B. Anderson*for appellant.

L. *A. Gould*for respondents.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edwabd T. Babtlett, Haight, Yann and Chase, JJ. Not sitting: Willaki Babtlett, J.
#### Murphy, appellant, v. Simmons.

*Oosts on appeal to county court.*

Defendant appealed to the county court from a judgment rendered hy a justice of the peace for $47.35, stating in his notice of appeal, that *“*the judgment should have been more favorable to him, in that it should have been ” for four different amounts specified. The plaintiff made no offer to modify the judgment of the justice. In the county court the plaintiff recovered $35 damages only. *Held,*that the plaintiff was entitled to costs, and to have the amount thereof, as taxed by the clerk, inserted in the judgment.

*Held,*also, that the cases of *Putnam*v. *Heath,*41 How. 363, and *Wadley*v. *Parris,*43 id. 83, were decisive of the question, and that a correct interpretation of section 371 of the'Code was given therein. “ Such interpretation has received the sanction of the court of appeals in *Youngham.se*v. *Pingar,*47 ÍT. Y. 99, and indirectly of the general term of this court in the third department in 43 How. 359.”

*A. G. S. Allis,*for appellant.

*Gray, Warren*and *Costello,*for respondent.

Gilbert, J.

The head-note gives the only point in the opinion.

*Order reversed.'*
§ 2552.25 What are a sponsor's administrative responsibilities? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70543 , Aug. 30, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70544 , Aug. 30, 2024.
A sponsor shall: ( a ) Assume full responsibility for securing maximum and continuing community financial and in-kind support to operate the project successfully.
( b ) Provide levels of staffing and resources appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the project and carry out its project management responsibilities.
( c ) Employ a full-time project director to accomplish project objectives and manage the functions and activities delegate to project staff for Senior Corps project(s) within its control. The project director may participate in activities to coordinate project resources with those of related local agencies, boards or organizations. A full-time project director shall not serve concurrently in another capacity, paid or unpaid, during established working hours. A sponsor may negotiate the employment of a part-time project director with CNCS when the sponsor can demonstrate that such an arrangement will not adversely affect the size, scope or quality of project operations.
( d ) Consider all project staff as sponsor employees subject to its personnel policies and procedures.
( e ) Compensate project staff at a level that is comparable to similar staff positions in the sponsor organization and/or project service area, as is practicable.
( f ) Establish risk management policies and procedures covering Foster Grandparent project activities. This includes provision of appropriate insurance coverage for Foster Grandparents, which includes; accident insurance, personal liability insurance, and excess automobile liability insurance.
( g ) Establish record keeping and reporting systems in compliance with CNCS requirements that ensure quality of program and fiscal operations, facilitate timely and accurate submission of required reports and cooperate with CNCS evaluation and data collection efforts.
( h ) Comply with, and ensure that all volunteer stations comply with, all applicable civil rights laws and regulations, including non-discrimination based on disability.
[64 FR 14126, Mar. 24, 1999, as amended at 83 FR 64650, Dec. 17, 2018]
§ 1801.14 Faculty Representative. ( a ) Each institution which nominates a student must give the Foundation the name, business address, and business telephone number of a member of the faculty or administrator who will serve as liaison between the institution and the Foundation.
( b ) The Faculty Representative is responsible for a timely submission of all nominations and supporting documentation.
( c ) The Foundation delegates the responsibility to the Faculty Representative to establish a process to publicize the scholarship, recruit candidates, select nominees, and assist nominees.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Dayshaun Jaquan Henry, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 22949-B.

Vs. No. 11-22-00320-CR * December 15, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Dayshaun Jaquan Henry’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-107-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)