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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2404 

To authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to First Lieutenant Alonzo 

H. Cushing for acts of valor during the Civil War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to First 

Lieutenant Alonzo H. Cushing for acts of valor during 

the Civil War. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) Alonzo H. Cushing was born in Delafield, 

6 Wisconsin, on January 19, 1841. 

7 (2) Alonzo H. Cushing graduated from the 

8 United States Military Academy at West Point, New 

9 York, on June 24, 1861. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2404 IS

1 (3) On July 3, 1863, First Lieutenant Alonzo 

2 H. Cushing commanded Battery A, 4th United 

3 States Artillery, Army of the Potomac, during the 

4 Battle of Gettysburg. 

5 (4) During the battle, First Lieutenant Alonzo 

6 H. Cushing was shot multiple times but refused to 

7 retreat. 

8 (5) First Lieutenant Alonzo H. Cushing contin9 ued to command his battery until he was shot and 

10 killed. 

11 (6) The Union victory at the Battle of Gettys12 burg was one of the key turning points in the Civil 

13 War. 

14 (7) The Secretary of the Army and the Sec15 retary of Defense have determined that the actions 

16 of First Lieutenant Alonzo H. Cushing do merit the 

17 award of the Medal of Honor. 

18 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF 

19 HONOR TO FIRST LIEUTENANT ALONZO H. 

20 CUSHING FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE 

21 CIVIL WAR. 

22 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding the time lim23 itations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

24 Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 

25 awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2404 IS

1 Armed Forces, the President is authorized to award the 

2 Medal of Honor under section 3741 of such title to then 

3 First Lieutenant Alonzo H. Cushing for conspicuous acts 

4 of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life and beyond 

5 the call of duty in the Civil War, as described in subsection 

6 (b). 

7 (b) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

8 referred to in subsection (a) are the actions of then First 

9 Lieutenant Alonzo H. Cushing while in command of Bat10 tery A, 4th United States Artillery, Army of the Potomac, 

11 at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on July 3, 1863, during the 

12 American Civil War. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norberto Bernier, Appellant.

[612 NYS2d 629]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered April 15, 1991, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of two to four years imprisonment and 3 *Vi*to 7 years imprisonment, respectively.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was a security guard at a nightclub when the crowd outside the club became restless and began pushing as they waited to enter. The defendant retrieved a shotgun from his boss, held it across his chest, and used the gun and his elbow to push the crowd back. The defendant knew the shotgun was loaded and had been given the gun in the past. During the struggle the defendant "accidentally” pulled the trigger and shot the decedent who at the time was pushing near the entrance to the club. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to another and that his actions constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe if faced with the same situation *(see,*Penal Law §§ 125.10, 15.05 [4]; *People v Licitra,*47 NY2d 554, 559; *People v Bolino,*146 AD2d 790, 792; *People v Penrose,*146 AD2d 947; *People v*
      *733
      *Rosario,*78 AD2d 864). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We also find that the sentencing court did not err by imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *People v Mabry,*151 AD2d 507; *People v Eleby,*137 AD2d 708; *People v Robbins,*118 AD2d 820). The crimes of criminally negligent homicide and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree were not committed in a single act. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02 (1), which required the People to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm and had been previously convicted of any crime. Each of these elements were satisfied before the shooting took place. "Once the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime” *(People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 130).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
FMMI Golf Course

04-007-8000

16629 Invalid 3-month average due to data capture and insufficient number of samples.

January * 5 5 100.00000 0 0.04680000 33 0.05

February ** 5 5 100.00000 0 0.04080000 67 0.04

March 5 4 80.00000 0 0.02375000 93 0.04

April 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03060000 93 0.03

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03320000 93 0.03

June 5 4 80.00000 0 0.03400000 93 0.03

July 5 5 100.00000 0 0.05260000 93 0.04

August 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01000000 93 0.03

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01920000 100 0.03

October 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01000000 100 0.01

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01900000 100 0.02

December 6 6 100.00000 0 0.00716667 100 0.01

January 5 4 80.00000 0 0.02900000 93 0.02

February 4 4 100.00000 0 0.05950000 93 0.03

March 6 6 100.00000 0 0.03416667 93 0.04

April 5 3 60.00000 0 0.02066667 87 0.04

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01560000 87 0.02

June 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01460000 87 0.02

July 5 4 80.00000 0 0.00800000 93 0.01

August 5 4 80.00000 0 0.02575000 87 0.02

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01300000 87 0.02

October 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01020000 93 0.02

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.05220000 100 0.03

December 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02520000 100 0.03

January 6 6 100.00000 0 0.01916667 100 0.03

February 4 4 100.00000 0 0.01925000 100 0.02

March 6 6 100.00000 0 0.03033333 100 0.02

April 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02320000 100 0.02

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02500000 100 0.03

June 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01040000 100 0.02

July 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02580000 100 0.02

August 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03640000 100 0.02

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01440000 100 0.03

October 5 4 80.00000 0 0.01725000 93 0.02

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03440000 93 0.02

December 5 3 60.00000 0 0.04933333 80 0.03

0.04

* January 2006 DV is not complete as there are no data for November and December 2005.

** February 2006 DV is not complete as there are no data for December 2005.

Pb-PM10 - Standard Conditions 3-Year Summary Statistics

Last Updated 8/25/2009

Invalid 3-month average due to data capture

Year Month

No. of 

Possible 

Samples

No. of 

Creditable 

Samples

Monthly 

Data 

Capture 

(%)

No. of 

Extra 

Samples

Monthly 

Average 

Lead 

(ug/m^3)

2008

2006-2008 Design Value = 

3-Month 

Data 

Capture 

(%)

3-Month 

Average 

Lead 

(ug/m^3)

Max 

3-Month 

Average

2006-2008 DESIGN VALUES

2006

2007
Before the Second Division,

November 25, 1942

No. 47755.

#### Protests 20341-K, etc., of Daniel M. Hicks, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Green*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1750 was sustained.
No. 74-6004.

#### Eaton *v.*Buchkoe, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1159 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

subpart F exemption for active financing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. SMITH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. LOTT, Mr. KYL, and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF SUBPART F EX4 EMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 954(h)(9) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and before 

7 January 1, 2007,’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

9 953(e)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended— 
2

•S 1159 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and before January 1, 2007,’’, 

2 and 

3 (2) by striking the second sentence thereof.

Æ
No. 96-1313.

#### Dodson *v.*Runyon, Postmaster General.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2268 

To ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop of the National 

Park Service or of the National Archives and Records Administration 

are produced in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To ensure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop 

of the National Park Service or of the National Archives 

and Records Administration are produced in the United 

States, 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 ‘‘American Parks Amer5 ican Products Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2268 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING THAT ITEMS SOLD IN CERTAIN FED2 ERAL GIFT SHOPS ARE PRODUCED IN THE 

3 UNITED STATES. 

4 (a) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.—The Secretary of the 

5 Interior shall ensure that all items offered for sale in any 

6 gift shop or visitor’s center located within a unit of the 

7 National Park System are produced in the United States. 

8 (b) NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINIS9 TRATION.—The Archivist of the United States shall en10 sure that all items offered for sale in any gift shop of the 

11 National Archives and Records Administration are pro12 duced in the United States. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00396-CV

Shattuck LLC, Appellant

v.

Mary Kleypas, as Independent Executor and as Beneficiary of the Estate of 

Gregory K. Shattuck, Deceased, Appellee

FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-PB-20-001014, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Shattuck LLC has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. 

We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 20, 2020
#### Jennifer Gromalski, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Kim Gromalski, Respondent, v County of Nassau, Defendant, and Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Intervenor-Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 192]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated July 30, 1992, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate its lien in the amount of $9,369.09, imposed pursuant to Social Services Law § 104-b, against the proceeds of a settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and new determination of the motion in accordance herewith.

Based upon the record as it presently exists, it is not possible to determine whether any portion of the proposed settlement of the infant plaintiff’s claim was intended to cover past reimbursed medical expenses, or if not, then whether or not the proposed settlement was consciously structured to frustrate the lien asserted by the appellant Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County for a hearing on these issues *(see, Pang v Maimonides Med. Ctr.—Maimonides Hosp.,*127 AD2d 641). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.
Case No. 9,389.

#### MEDFORD v. DORSEY.

[2 Wash. C. C. 433.]1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1810.

Judgment — Error in Entering — Motion to Vacate — Eon What Errors Granted.

If there was error in entering a judgment, the court, at a subsequent term, cannot set it aside, unless it was entered by misprision of the clerk, by fraud, or the like.

[Cited in West v. Davis, Case No. 17,422; Bank of U. S. v. Moss, 6 How. (47 TJ. S.) 38; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. (SS Ti. S.) 552; TJ. S. v. Millinger, 7 Fed. IS!); Newman v. Newton, 14 Fed. (!35; U. S. v. Walsh, 22 Fed. (348; Grames v. Hawley, 50 Fed. 320.]

[Approved in Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 298; Mason v. Pearson, 11S Mass. 03. Cited in Gibson v. Chouteau’s Heirs, 45 Mo. 173: Mc-Micken v. Com.. 5S Pa. St. 217; Parish v. Gear, 1 Pin. 276.]

[Subsequently, upon motion of the defendant, the judgment was ordered to be entered satisfied. Case No. 9,390.]

This cause had been referred to arbitrators by rule of court, who made a report in favour of the plaintiff, for 1850 dollars, provided the plaintiff should give to the defendant a bond of indemnity against Holt & Co. [assignees of McCall Medford] and two or three other persons. The report was returned, about four years ago, and it appears by the records, that, on motion, it was confirmed and decreed. [Case No. 6.647.] The defendant now obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated, the judgment having been improvidently entered, until the indemnity was given, and by which it appeared, upon showing cause, the agent of the plaintiffs (they living in England) had refused to give or to receive the sum awarded, on the condition prescribed. It also appeared, that Holt had recovered, and been paid by the defendant. 1000 dollars, of the sum for which the indemnity was to be given; and other suits were now depending.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(PETERS, District Judge, absent).

This judgment, having been entered at a former court, though probably improvidently done, and might have been refused, had it been opposed, until the indemnity was given, cannot now be vacated. If there was error in entering it. the court, at a subsequent term, cannot set it aside, unless it was entered by the misprision of the clerk, by fraud, or the like. It is a hardship upon the defendant, to have his real estate bound by a judgment which it is improbable will ever be enforced; and there is possibly no way to help the defendant, but by entering satisfaction on the judgment, whenever it is made to appear, that the sum awarded has been paid to those against whose claims the defendant was to be indemnified.

Rule discharged.
No. 45273.

#### Protest 36644-K of F. B. Wilcon Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff when the case-was set for hearing. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 121]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3479]]

Public Law 111-121
111th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Appointing the day for the convening of the second session of the One 
  Hundred Eleventh Congress. <<NOTE: Dec. 22, 2009 -  [H.J. Res. 62]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the second regular session 
of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress shall begin at noon on Tuesday, 
January 5, 2010.

    Approved December 22, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 62:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Dec. 11, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 14, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Sonoma  Valley  Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  We,
Mel Switzer, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Mary Dieter Smith, 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 to the best of
our knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:  November 10, 2005    /s/ Mel Switzer, Jr.
        -----------------    --------------------------------------------------
                             Mel Switzer, Jr.,
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  November 10, 2005    /s/ Mary Dieter Smith
        -----------------    --------------------------------------------------
                             Mary Dieter Smith,
                             Executive Vice President
                             Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                            (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7158]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 10 a.m.-11.a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matter To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Toddler Beds--Final Rule.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 22, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7158 Filed 3-23-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
No. 6014.

#### IN RE. LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF LOUISIANA.

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Syllabus.

This Court on appeal having rendered a final decree amending the judgment appealed from at the cost of the appellee, has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment subsequently rendered' by’the trial Court- on- a rule'to fix or tax the costs under said decree.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 99,284. Hon F. D. King, 'Judge.

Theo. Cotonio, for plaintiff and appellant.

Smart *&*Patorno, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

When this cause was before us on a prior appeal, Nos. 5738 and 5739 of our docket (10 Ct. of App., 180), we rendered a final decree amending one of the judgments appealed from ‘ ‘ at the cost -of appellee. ’ ’ Upon the filing of this decree below, the then appellant took a rule to tax or fix the costs i-n accordance therewith; and a judgment *161taxing these costs at $25.00 having been rendered, the defendant in rule, the Land Development Company, now appeals.

Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1913.

Syllabus.

Involves only a matter of costs.

A motion is now made- to dismiss this appeal on the ground that “the judgment appealed from is for . an amount below the minimum amount over which this Court has appellate jurisdiction. ”

There is no merit in this motion; for as this is an appeal from a judgment taxing costs under our prior decree, this Court is vested with jurisdiction in the premises regardless of the amount in dispute. '

State ex rel. Johnson vs. Judges, 107 La., 69; Globe Realty Co., vs. Vix, 120 La., 95.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly overruled.

The motion to dismiss overruled.

On the Merits.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

1 This appeal involves only a matter of costs. The trial Judge allowed $25,00, being $28.00 to which mover (ap.pellee) was entitled, less $3.00 due to respondent (appellant).

It is possible that appellant was actually entitled to an additional credit for some testimony which was overlooked; but if so, the amount ($1.00) is too inconsiderable to warrant an amendment and the taxing of the costs of appeal to appellee. De minimus non curate lex.

*162Opinion and decree, February 25th, 1914,

Rehearing refused, March 23, 1914.

■ The main point at issue (but for whieh this appeal would doubtless not have been taken) is whether or not the Clerk of this Court was entitled to charge two-fees for two appeals taken by separate motions and from separate judgment, though in the same proceedings; and we have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the Clerk was entitled to make the charges which he did.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 40534.

#### Protests 909069-G, etc., of S. H. Kress et al. (Honolulu, etc.).

Opinion by First Division. Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.