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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 753

To provide interim current census data on below poverty, urban, rural, and

farm populations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. BACCHUS of Florida (for himself, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. HUTTO, Mr. HASTINGS, Mrs. MEEK, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. BROWN

of Florida, Mr. SHAW, Mr. PETERSON of Florida, and Mr. GOSS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To provide interim current census data on below poverty,

urban, rural, and farm populations.

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 ‘‘Census Data Fair

5 Share Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. INTERIM CURRENT DATA, POPULATION.

7 Section 181 of title 13, United States Code, is

8 amended by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c)
2

•HR 753 IH

1 and inserting after subsection (a) the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(b) During the intervals between each census of pop4 ulation required under section 141 of this title, the Sec5 retary, to the extent feasible, shall annually produce and

6 publish for each State, urban area, and rural area, current

7 data or estimates on below poverty, urban, rural, and farm

8 populations. Such data or estimates shall be produced and

9 published for each State, urban area, and rural area for

10 which data is compiled in the most recent census of popu11 lation taken under section 141 of this title. Such data or

12 estimates may be produced by means of sampling or other

13 methods, which the Secretary determines will produce cur14 rent, comprehensive, and reliable data or estimates.’’.

Æ
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, August 15, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.

Dated: July 2, 2018.

Terrie English,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2018-14646 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### McFADDEN v. J. W. CONNER & SONS, INC.

No. 38500.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
#### Wiley MAXWELL, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-758.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         196,974
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               530,737
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    435,227
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       9,103,506
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         9,368,819
<LOANS>                                     26,020,901
<ALLOWANCE>                                    236,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,666,093
<DEPOSITS>                                  26,395,440
<SHORT-TERM>                                   737,833
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            915,660
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,456,372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,631
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,155,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              38,666,093
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                476,244
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               49,966
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               168,751
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               694,961
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             307,567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             444,260
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          250,701
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      574
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 93,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                192,380
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     120,368
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.14
<LOANS-NON>                                    252,043
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                16,575
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 75,747
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               244,466
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,186
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              236,476
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           236,476
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
butamaxterminationandass






Certain identified information has been redacted from this document because it is both not material and would be competitively harmful if publicly disclosed 





 






 





 






[***] [***] [***] 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






 





 






[***]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40462 Summary Calendar

__________________ ISMAEL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Receiver of Hidalgo Savings and Loan Association, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-93-CV-084

- - - - - - - - - - June 6, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Martinez appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Martinez challenges state-court proceedings concerning the foreclosure of his property and the issuance of a forcible entry and detainer judgment. Because Martinez is attempting to collaterally attack a state-court judgment, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review hisNo. 95-40462 -2- claims. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex. , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 271 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Martinez's complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Gary Lee Reed, * From the 350th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 11360-D.

Vs. No. 11-16-00303-CR * November 17, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
# C_2022198EN.01001401.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/14

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Orbest, SA v CS, QN, OP and Others

(Case C-659/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 5(3) - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft’s technical failure caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport)

(2022/C 198/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orbest, SA

Defendants: CS, QN, OP and Others

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the technical failure of an aircraft caused by the collision of a catering vehicle owned by a third party with that aircraft while the latter was parked at the airport may be covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  Filing date: 2.11.2021

---
Complaint Form

FIRST NAME LAST NAME

STREET ADDRESS

TOWN/CITY

STATE ZIP CODE

TELEPHONE NUMBER ALTERNATE TELEPHONE NUMBER

EMAIL ADDRESS

EMPLOYER

If you are a GPO employee, please specify your business unit 

Are you covered by the GPO Master Labor-Management Agreement? Yes No I do not know

Are you willing to waive your confidentiality in the event your complaint is referred to GPO management for resolution? Yes No

What type of fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement are you reporting (check all that apply)?

Procurement and/or Contract Fraud

Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Theft

Illegal Drug Possession and/or Use

Other (please specify):

 Who committed the alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement?

 When did the alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement occur?

 Where did the alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement occur?

( ) ( )

Illegal Gambling

Misuse of Government Funds and/or Property

Employee Misconduct
Complaint Form

 How did the alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement occur?

 Identify by name and title, if possible, other individuals who may have knowledge of the alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement.

 What evidence, including documents and emails, do you possess or know of that supports your allegation(s) of fraud, waste, abuse, 

 and/or mismanagement?

 Has this matter been appealed, grieved, or reported under another procedure, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), 

 Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or union processes? Yes (explain below) No

 On what date(s) did you elect another procedure?

 What is the status of the other procedure(s) (i.e. pending, closed)?

 Is there any other information you would like to provide the OIG regarding this complaint?

Are you willing to be interviewed (check the appropriate box)? Yes No 

By checking this box, I certify that the information contained in this complaint form is truthful to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, 

I made this complaint freely and voluntarily, without any threats or rewards, or promises of reward having been made to me in return for it.

print submit

Instructions: Complete this form and download it to your

computer. Open the completed form and select the SUBMIT button at the

bottom of the form. Select your email preference and send the form to the

Inspector General Hotline.
VERIZON NORTHWEST INC.





EXHIBIT 12





COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES





Nine Months Ended September 30, 2002(Dollars in Millions)Income before provision for income taxes

$
215.8Equity in income from affiliate


(.1
)Interest expense


32.6Portion of rent expense representing interest


13.1Amortization of capitalized interest


.5Earnings, as adjusted

$
261.9Fixed charges:Interest expense

$
32.6Portion of rent expense representing interest


13.1Capitalized interest


.9Fixed Charges

$
46.6Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


5.62
# C_2023179EN.01000302.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v E.N., S.S., J.Y.

(Case C-556/21, (1) Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Suspension of the transfer time limit on appeal))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Appeal against a decision to transfer an asylum seeker - Article 29 - Transfer time limit - Suspension of that time limit on appeal - Interim measure requested by the authorities)

(2023/C 179/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Defendants: E.N., S.S., J.Y.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction with Article 27(3) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which allows a national court or tribunal hearing an appeal at second instance against a judgment annulling a transfer decision to adopt, on the application of the competent authorities, an interim measure enabling those authorities to refrain from taking a fresh decision pending the outcome of that appeal and having the object or effect of suspending the running of the transfer time limit until that outcome, provided that such a measure may be adopted only where the implementation of the transfer decision has been suspended pursuant to Article 27(3) or (4) of that regulation during the examination of the appeal at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 456 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 456

    Electing Representative Lewis of Kentucky to the Committees on 
                   Agriculture and Veterans' Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1994

 Mr. Gingrich submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Electing Representative Lewis of Kentucky to the Committees on 
                   Agriculture and Veterans' Affairs.

    Resolved, That Representative Ron Lewis of Kentucky be, and is 
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives: Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.

                                 <all>
```
[No. 409-3.

Division Three.

June 1, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Mary Dimmer, *Appellant.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 497 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 497

                  Concerning the situation in Rwanda.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1994

   Mr. Saxton (for himself and Mr. Dellums) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                  Concerning the situation in Rwanda.

Whereas 2,000,000 refugees fled in a mass exodus from the nation of Rwanda;
Whereas the situation in Rwanda has been characterized as the greatest refugee 
        crisis in modern times;
Whereas thousands of Rwandan refugees are dying due to disease and starvation;
Whereas over 1,200 tons of food a day and 1,000,000 gallons of water are 
        reported to be required to stem death and sickness among the Rwandan 
        refugees;
Whereas the American people and the United States Government have historically 
        responded to human tragedies through the delivery of food, medicine, and 
        other life-sustaining supplies; and
Whereas the United States' ability to transport and deliver critically-needed 
        humanitarian aid to Rwanda and future crises is hampered by a declining 
        airlift fleet: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Government should maintain a commitment to mobilize, 
in concert with the United Nations and the country's allies, to provide 
necessary aid to relieve the human suffering resulting from the Rwandan 
crisis and to take active steps to ensure that the United States 
possesses the military assets needed to accomplish this vital 
undertaking.

                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with 15 separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed ' pursuant to our decision in State of Florida v. O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
AEROTRADER7000MERRILLAVENUE,BOX19HANGARA497,CHINOAIRPORTCHINO,CALIF.91710(909)597-4020May4,2016TheRulesDocket(AGC-200)FederalAviationAdministration800IndependenceAvenueSWWashington,DC.20591B-25PARTS&MANUALSWARBIRDMAINTENANCE&RESTORATIONSRe:PetitionforExemptionfromFederalAviationRegulation14CFR91.315ToPermitFlightTrainingForCompensationOrHireInALimitedCategoryB-25AircraftToWhomItMayConcern:AEROTRADERcurrentlyholdsFAAExemptionNo.11073toallowAEROTRADERtoconductinitialandrecurrenttraininginitsNorthAmericanB-25(LimitedCategory)forcompensationorhire.AEROTRADERwishestorenewthisexemption,whichexpiresonSeptember30,2016,fortheoperationofAEROTRADER'sNorthAmericanB-25aircraft.Verytrulyyours,CarlW.SchollPresident
#### JOHN H. ELLIGOOD, defendant below *vs.*WILLIAM CANNON, plaintiff below.

To eustain a judgment *hyt default,*the justice’s record must show that he heard the *proofs*ofplainfifFs claim.

It is not "sufficient that hS*'11 investigates the plaintiff’s demand;” he must require such proof as the nature of the case admits of.

If the suit be cbinmenced by *summons,*the justice should allow the freeholder’s stay of execution, unless oath be made, &c.

Certiorari to Justice Wilson.

The exceptions to the judgment in this case were:—

*1.*That the *place*of appearance was uncertain. The summons commanded the constable to “ summon John H. Elligood to appear on Monday, the 29th of January inst., *at his office*at Bridgeville, before Wm. B. Wilson, one of our justices, &c. &c.” 2. That judgment was rendered by the justice, by default, against the said John H. Elligood, without first having heard the" allegations and *proofs*of the plaintiff. The record stated that *“*the defendant not appearing, the constable is sworn to the service of the aforesaid summons; and after investigating the plaintiff’s demand, judgment is rendered for plaintiff for $18 32 debt, and sixty-nine cents cost,'by default, January 29, 1844.” 3. That John H. Elligood was at the rendition of judgment, a *freeholder*of the county, and was treated as such by the plaintiff below, by suing out the writ of summons; and that execution was therefore irregularly issued without a stay.

*By the Court.*

The first exception is insufficient. The grammatical construction of the sentence would produce the uncertainty of place contended for; but the real and apparent meaning of the.summons, is to appear at the office of the justice named.

*177*Cullen,*for plaintiff.

*McFee,*for defendant.

The second exception is fatal. The act of assembly requires the justice, before giving judgment by default, to" hear the allegations *and proofs*of the plaintiff; and to sustain such a judgment, this must appear either by express entry of the justice, or by other matters in the record. And this is an important matter. The justice ought to require all the proof which the nature of the case demands, whether the defendant appears or not. The default of the defendant cannot dispense with any such proof. In an action on a book account, as this is, the plaintiff’s book of original" entries ought to be produced *and sworn to.*Nothing of this kind appears by the present record. The entry is that the justice *investigated the plaintiff’s demand;*it ought to be that he heard *the allegations and proofs of the plaintiff.*

The third exception also would be sufficient to set aside the execution. The plaintiff treated the defendant as a ■ freeholder by making his first process a summons; and he was legal stay of execution, or make oath against the defendnat's freehold.