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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7199 

To provide grants to law enforcement agencies for de-escalation training 

and community outreach, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2020 

Mr. BUDD (for himself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Mr. CURTIS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants to law enforcement agencies for de-escalation training and community outreach, 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 ‘‘Community Policing 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DE-ESCALATION TRAINING AND COMMUNITY OUT7 REACH GRANT PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall make 

9 grants to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7199 IH

1 providing de-escalation training and community outreach 

2 as described in subsection (c). 

3 (b) APPLICATION.—To receive a grant under this sec4 tion, a law enforcement agency shall submit to the Attor5 ney General an application at such time, in such manner, 

6 and containing such information as the Attorney General 

7 may require. 

8 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under this sec9 tion may be used— 

10 (1) to provide de-escalation training; and 

11 (2) to facilitate community outreach initiatives 

12 between the law enforcement agency and the com13 munity that the agency serves. 

14 (d) PRIORITY.—In making grants under this section, 

15 priority shall be given to law enforcement agencies with 

16 high crime rates. 

17 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

18 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act, 

19 $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025, 

20 of which— 

21 (1) $7,500,000 shall be for de-escalation train22 ing; and 

23 (2) $2,500,000 shall be for community out24 reach. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33969]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 101-43 and 101-46

[FPMR Temp. Reg. H-28]
RIN 3090-AG01


Relocation of FIRMR Provisions Relating to GSA's Role in the 
Disposal of Excess and Exchange/Sale Information Technology (IT) 
Equipment

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Temporary regulation; extension of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) is extending Federal 
Property Management Regulations provisions regarding disposal of 
information technology (IT) equipment.

DATES: Effective date: Temporary regulation H-28 published August 8, 
1996 was effective August 8, 1996 through December 31, 1997. The period 
of effectiveness is extended through December 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Caswell, Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA, telephone 202-
501-3228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FPMR Temporary Regulation H-28 was published 
in the Federal Register on August 8, 1996, 61 FR 41352. The expiration 
date of the temporary regulation is December 31, 1997. This supplement 
extends the expiration date through December 31, 1998.

Lists of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 101-43 and 101-46

    Archives and records, Computer technology, Information technology, 
Government procurement, Property management, Records management, and 
Telecommunications.

    Therefore the effective date for Temporary Regulation H-28 
published at 61 FR 41352, August 8, 1996, is extended through December 
31, 1998.

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Thurman M. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-33969 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-24-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34015]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-5-97-000]


Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

December 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 18, 1997, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company 
(Chandeleur) tendered for filing proposed changes in its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Sheet No. 5.
    Chandeleur is proposing to change its Fuel and Line Loss Allowance 
from 0.7% to 0.6%, to become effective January 1, 1998.
    Chandeleur states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's jurisdictional customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 375.211 to the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-34015 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Sidney SCHOENBERG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-578.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Cohen & Hogan and Alan E. Weinstein, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olean, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County of the crime of conspiracy to bribe a public officer, under § 833.04 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence which followed.

Appellant urges reversal on several grounds, one of which is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. This point has been carefully considered by this court in the light of the record, briefs and argument of counsel and found to have merit. The evidence adduced was inconclusive, and fell far short of establishing guilt and was insufficient to sustain the conviction. See: Schuler v. State, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 336; Bazarte v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 500, 504; State v. Trafficante, Fla.App.1961, 136 So.2d 264. See also, 7 Florida Law and Practice, “Criminal Law” § 594, pp. 34-36. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside with directions that a new trial be granted.

Reversed with directions that a new trial be granted.
FOR RELEASE AT 3:00 p.m. 

October 30, 1992 

Contact: Anne Kelly Williams 

(202) 622-2960 

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING ESTIMATES 

The Treasury Department today announced that its net market 

borrowing for the October-December 1992 quarter is estimated to 

be $87 billion, with a $30 billion cash balance on December 31. 

The Treasury also announced that its net market borrowing for the 

January-March 1993 quarter is estimated to be in a range of 

$65 billion to $70 billion, with a $20 billion cash balance at 

the end of March. The borrowing estimates assume that Congress 

will not enact additional funding for thrift resolutions before 

early next year, which will prevent significant Resolution Trust 

Corporation spending during these two quarters. 

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing needs on 

August 3, 1992, the Treasury estimated net market borrowing 

during the October-December quarter to be in a range of $115 

billion to $120 billion, assuming a $30 billion cash balance on 

December 31. The higher-than-expected cash balance at the end of 

September accounts for most of the cut in the market borrowing 

estimate in the October-December quarter. 

Actual market borrowing in the quarter ended September 30, 

1992, was $72.4 billion, while the end-of-quarter cash balance 

was $58.8 billion. On August 3, the Treasury had estimated 

market borrowing for the July-September quarter to be $75 

billion, with a $35 billion cash balance on September 30. A 

reduction in the cash deficit accounted for the higher cash 

balance and the reduction in market borrowing.
#### Benido VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-734.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jill Taymans, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    JILL TAYMANS                 
|                                    
|Jill Taymans Vice President, Finance



June
27, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6315

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus LAWSON JACOB DODSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-106; CA-00-285) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawson Jacob Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Carroll Eugene Dodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 31, 2002. The notice of appeal, dated January 3, 2003, was received by the district court on January 8, 2003. * Because Dodson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are- 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Mark Aston MCADOO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-56976.

D.C. No. CV-00-11777-TJH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Mark Aston McAdoo, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, construed as a § 2255 petition, challenging the validity of his 1989 federal sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *see United States v. Pirro,*104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm.

To the extent McAdoo challenges the validity of the federal sentence imposed upon his 1989 conviction, the petition was properly dismissed as time barred. *See United States v. Valdez,*195 F.3d 544, 546 (9th Cir.1999). To the extent McAdoo challenges the validity of the detainer placed upon him pursuant to allegations of probation violation, his claims are premature. *See United States v. Linares,*921 F.2d 841, 843-44 (9th Cir.1990) (concluding appellant’s challenge to potential revocation of his supervised release was not ripe *842for review).1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Contrary to McAdoo's assertions, the district court properly construed his petition as one under § 2255. *Moore v. Reno,*185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that limitations imposed by AEDPA do not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32668]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1581-1, Airplane Flight Manual

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
25.1581-1, Airplane Flight Manual. The primary purpose of the FAA-
approved AFM is to provide an authoritative source of information 
considered necessary for safely operating the airplane. The AC 
identifies the information that must be provided in the AFM under the 
airworthiness regulations and provides guidance as to the form and 
content of the approved portion of an AFM.

DATES: Advisory Circular 25.1581-1 was issued on July 14, 1997, by the 
Acting Manager of the Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, in Renton, Washington.
    How To Obtain Copies: A copy of AC 25.1581-1 may be obtained by 
writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, 
Landover, MD 20785.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 19, 1997.
Stewart R. Miller,
Manager, Transport Standards Staff, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, ANM-100.
[FR Doc. 97-32668 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Opinion filed March 24, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00350-CV

__________

MARC ALLEN MASON, Appellant

V.

CHARLES H. WHEELER ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 106th District Court

Dawson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-06-18395

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

Marc Allen Mason filed a pro se appeal challenging two orders dismissing his claims as

to several of the defendants. The orders do not purport to be final or appealable. The clerk of 

this court wrote Mason and informed him that it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in this 

case because there was no final judgment disposing of all parties. We requested that Mason 

respond and show grounds for continuing the appeal. We also notified him that the appeal may 

be dismissed pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42. See Rule 42.3. 
2

Mason has filed a response in which he acknowledges that his claims against some of the 

defendants remain pending in the trial court. Absent an order of severance or orders disposing of

all claims against all parties to this lawsuit, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. 

A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840-41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Mason has not established why the orders he is challenging 

are appealable at this time. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 24, 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
#### Oscar JEFFERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 1, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bra-denton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446; Dixon v. State, Fla.App.3d 1971, 252 So.2d 594.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7065 

To require States to certify a process for distributing Coronavirus Relief 

Funds to local governments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2020 

Mr. BRADY (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. WENSTRUP, and Mr. SCHWEIKERT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require States to certify a process for distributing 

Coronavirus Relief Funds to local governments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STATE DISTRIBUTION OF CORONAVIRUS RE4 LIEF FUND. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 12, 2020, 

6 each State that received a payment for fiscal year 2020 

7 under section 601(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 801(b)(1)) shall provide the Secretary of the 

9 Treasury with a certification signed by the Chief Execu10 tive for the State that— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7065 IH

1 (1) certifies that the State has in effect a proce2 dure to distribute funds provided under such pay3 ment, to the extent determined appropriate by the 

4 State, to units of local government within the State; 

5 and 

6 (2) includes a detailed description of such pro7 cedure. 

8 (b) RECOUPMENT.—If the Inspector General of the 

9 Department of the Treasury determines, pursuant to the 

10 authority provided under section 601(f) of such Act (42 

11 U.S.C. 801(f)), that a State has failed to comply with sub12 section (a) with respect to a payment described in such 

13 subsection, an amount equal to 25 percent of such pay14 ment shall be booked as a debt of such entity owed to 

15 the Federal Government. Amounts recovered under this 

16 subsection shall be deposited into the general fund of the 

17 Treasury. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
November 13, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LAKEITH AMIR SHARIF, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00792-CV V.

EILEEN KENNEDY, ET AL, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed 

by the court below on August 8, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Lakeith Amir Sharif.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68288-68289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34098]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5942-8]


Public Meetings of the Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory 
Committee, the Storm Water Phase II Advisory Subcommittee, and the 
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Advisory Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
is convening a public meeting of the Storm Water Phase II Advisory 
Subcommittee. The Storm Water Phase II Advisory Committee will discuss 
the latest draft of the proposed rule and other related topics for 
program implementation.

DATES: February 5-6, 1998. On the first day, the meeting will start at 
10:00 a.m. EST and end at 5:00 p.m. On the second day, the meeting will 
begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Madison Hotel, Fifteenth & M 
Streets, NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number is (202) 862-1600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharie Centilla, Office of Wastewater Management, at (202) 260-6052, or

[[Page 68289]]

Internet: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcdfd9d2c8d5d0d0dd92cfd4ddced5d9fcd9ccddd1ddd5d092d9ccdd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8c8a819b8683838ec19c878e9d868aaf8a9f8e828e8683c18a9f8ec1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Alfred W. Lindsey,
Deputy Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Designated Federal 
Official.
[FR Doc. 97-34098 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>