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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1091 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1091

    To provide for the issuance of an Alzheimer's Disease Research 
                           Semipostal Stamp.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2013

 Ms. Mikulski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the issuance of an Alzheimer's Disease Research 
                           Semipostal Stamp.

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

SECTION 1. ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH SEMIPOSTAL STAMP.

    (a) In General.--In order to afford a convenient way for members of 
the public to contribute to funding for medical research relating to 
Alzheimer's disease, the United States Postal Service shall issue a 
semipostal stamp (referred to in this Act as the ``Alzheimer's Disease 
Research Semipostal Stamp'') in accordance with the provisions of this 
section.
    (b) Terms and Conditions.--
            (1) In general.--The issuance and sale of the Alzheimer's 
        Disease Research Semipostal Stamp shall be governed by the 
        provisions of section 416 of title 39, United States Code, and 
        regulations issued under such section, subject to the 
        requirements of this subsection.
            (2) Duration.--The Alzheimer's Disease Research Semipostal 
        Stamp shall be made available to the public for a period of 6 
        years, beginning no later than 12 months after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (3) Disposition of proceeds.--All amounts becoming 
        available from the sale of the Alzheimer's Disease Research 
        Semipostal Stamp (as determined under section 416(d) of such 
        title 39) shall be transferred to the National Institutes of 
        Health, for the purpose described in subsection (a), through 
        payments which shall be made at least twice a year.
    (c) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``semipostal 
stamp'' refers to a stamp described in section 416(a)(1) of title 39, 
United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          94,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,862,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,295
<INVENTORY>                                 14,252,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,104,420
<PP&E>                                      16,621,485
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,493,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,405,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,725,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,259,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,405,440
<SALES>                                     42,965,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,965,624
<CGS>                                       36,368,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,368,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (12,808)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               250,295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                799,891
<INCOME-TAX>                                   286,619
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            513,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   513,272
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 7, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 7, 2017

154374(150)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154374

v COA: 325856

Berrien CC: 2014-001528-FH

EDWARD PINKNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Michigan for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief 

submitted on June 30, 2017, is accepted for filing.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1154 

To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit Exchanges are 

not operating on October 1, 2013. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. COCHRAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit Exchanges are not operating on 

October 1, 2013. 

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 ‘‘Exchange Sunset Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1154 IS

1 SEC. 2. NONAPPLICATION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION 

2 AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. 

3 (a) TERMINATION OF EXCHANGE REQUIREMENT.— 

4 Section 1312 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

5 Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031) is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) FAILURE TO OFFER COVERAGE.—If one or more 

8 Exchanges fails to accept applications for enrollment in 

9 qualified health plans beginning on October 1, 2013, the 

10 requirements of this section shall cease to apply, and any 

11 other provisions of this Act (or an amendment made by 

12 this Act) relating to Exchanges shall not be applicable.’’. 

13 (b) REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE.—Section 5000A 

14 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add15 ing at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(h) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this section 

17 shall terminate on October 1, 2013 if the Secretary of the 

18 Treasury determines that one or more Exchanges fails to 

19 accept applications for enrollment in qualified health plans 

20 on such date.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Made in America Day and Made in America Week, 2018

On Made in America Day and during Made in America Week, we celebrate the importance of American manufacturing, construction, agriculture, mining, and entrepreneurship to our Nation's prosperity and economic vitality. Made in America products represent the global gold standard for quality, innovation, and craftsmanship and the output of a highly skilled workforce that is second to none.

American workers and job creators sustain and inspire the American Dream, while enhancing both our economic and national security, which are inextricably linked.

For far too long, the working men and women of our country have been ignored. That era is over.

Last year, I signed into law historic tax cuts and reform, which have unleashed a flow of investment and jobs back into America from overseas. Optimism among American manufacturers has hit all-time highs as American businesses across the country have paid bonuses, increased wages, and boosted contributions to employee retirement plans.

My Administration is also delivering on its promise to cut unnecessary and burdensome regulations that hamper economic growth.

I have consistently pledged to the American people that I will reinvigorate our workforce by instituting fair and reciprocal trade practices so that companies can compete, thrive, and grow. My trade agenda is focused on defending our workers and businesses from unfair trade practices and on removing barriers to our products and services, so that our Nation can compete and so that “buy American and hire American” once again becomes the best option in an increasingly international and competitive market. Accordingly, I will continue to negotiate and modernize our trade agreements to bring about free, fair, and reciprocal trade and thereby ensure open, fair, and competitive markets for America's products and services.

Our Nation continues to thrive due to the determination, imagination, skill, creativity, and excellence of our people. American industry reflects these qualities and evokes patriotism, pride, and the hope of a bright and prosperous future. We salute our Nation's workers, job creators, and inventors, and we pledge to continue creating an environment that makes the United States the most attractive place in the world to do business.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 17, 2018, as Made in America Day and this week, July 15 through July 21, 2018, as Made in America Week. I call upon all Americans to pay special tribute to the builders, the ranchers, the crafters, the entrepreneurs, and all those who work with their hands every day to make America great.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eighteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

[FR Doc. 2018-15510

Billing code 3295-F8-P
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 05/02/2012 03:39 PM

Subject: RE:SETTLEMENT agreement

It's a settlement agreement -sorry I used the wrong term. Do you have these public documents? Click on 

the attachment, upper left corner.

(See attached file: ENV_DEFENSE-#593481-v1-DN_1369132_Motion_Filed.PDF)

(See attached file: ENV_DEFENSE-#593479-v1-DN_1369131_Motion_Filed.PDF)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/02/2012 03:34 PM

Subject: RE: consent agreement stipulated date

Hi Sharon,

Is a consent decree or settlement agreement? The information I have fromOP lists it as a settlement 

agreement.

Thanks,

Cortney

From: Sharon Nizich [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 2:48 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Subject: consent agreement stipulated date

The consent agreement lists June 15 as the proposal date. Also, I need to move our talk tomorrow so 

OGC can attend. Sorry for the change.

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825
# C_2022244EN.01002901.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kande Mupompa v Council

(Case T-104/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alex Kande Mupompa (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Lejeune, acting as Agent)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alex Kande Mupompa to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alex Kande Mupompa to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
Edward s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00483

- CV

Rowland MARTIN , Jr., Appellant

v.

Edward BRAVENEC , and The Law Office of Mcknight and Bravenec, Appellee

From the 28 5th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 07644 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On July 24, 2014, Appellant Rowland Martin filed a sworn Affidavit of Indigency. After reviewing appellant’ s application , we find it meets the requirements of Rule 20.1 of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to affidavits of indigence

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1(b). Accordingly, we ABATE the cause to the trial court and ORDER that:

a. the clerk, court reporter, or any party wishing to challenge the claim of indigence do so by filing a contest to the affidavit in the trial court within 10 days from the date of this order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (e).

b. the trial court conduct a hearing or sign an order extending the time to conduct a hearing within 10 days after the contest is filed; prov iding, however, that the time for conducting a hearing on the contest must not be extended for more than 20 days from the date the trial court signs its order extending the time to conduct the hearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (i)(2).

c. the trial court determ ine whether or not the appeal is frivolous if no

contest is filed or if a contest is overruled. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 13.003.

d. the trial court prepare a written order and written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding its indigenc e determination and its determination with regard to whether the appeal is frivolous.e. the trial court clerk file a supplemental clerk’s record as soon as practicable after the trial court enters its order and written findings and

conclusions but in no event later than 60 days from the date of this court’s order, containing: (1) the contest or a certificate stating no contest was filed: (2) the trial court’s order; (3) the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; (4) the judgment being appe aled; (5) any post

judgment motions; (6) the notice of appeal; and (7) the court’s docket

sheet.

f. the court reporter file a reporter’s record of the hearing as soon as practicable but in no event later than 60 days from the date of this court’s

order.

We further ORDER the clerk of this court to forward a copy of appellant’s affidavit of indigence to all parties. All appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further orders

from this court.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 29th day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### AMELIA COOK, Assignee of N. CLARK, Sheriff *vs.*I. T. COOPER.

On a judgment confessed, “ amount to be ascertained by prothonotary,” and no amount ascertained for fourteen years; the court refused to make an order for ascertaining the amount against the defendant, who was a surety, and both plaintiff and principal in the original action, being dead.

Rule to show cause, &c.

At the last term, *Mr. Bates,*for the administrator of Mrs. Cook, moved the court for an order on the prothonotary to ascertain the amount of a judgment rendered against I. T. Cooper, on the 24th of November, 3830. There were two suits brought to November term, 1829, and doeketted as actions of *debt,*by Amelia Cook, as *assignee*of N. Clark, *sheriff,*against R. J. Cooper and I. T. Cooper, severally. There was an appearance in each case, and judgment by confession, at the November term, 1830; “ amount to be ascertained by the prothonotary, with stay of execution for five months.” The amount of this judgment had-never been ascertained. Both the plaintiff and the defendant, R. J. Cooper, were dead.

*Mr. Fisher,*for the defendant,

I. T. Cooper, who he alledged was merely the special bail of the other defendant, objected to the order.

1. The authority of the prothonotary to ascertain the amount of a judgment, must of necessity have some limitation. A neglect of fourteen years to ascertain an amount; until both plaintiff and defendant are dead, and all the matters of defence forgotten, is such loches as ought not to be aided, and an application now to ascertain the amount as against a surety, will not be entertained.

2. There are no legal parties to the suit; both plaintiff and defendant are dead.

3. These were actions on a bail bond against principal and bail, and the amount of the judgment cannot be ascertained against the surety, until it is ascertained against the principal; and cannot be recovered against either, until judgment is recovered against the principal in the original action.

4. The constitution authorizes the continuing of a suit by suggestion of death, but this must be done at the next term. There is now no power by mere suggestion to make proper parties in these causes.

*Mr. Bates*

replied, that this was not the case of an attempt to continue a suit pending, after the death of a party, with a view to obtain a judgment; but it was the application, of a party who has a judg*190ment, for an order on the officer of the court to execute the original order made on him.

*Bates,*for the rule.

*Fisher*and *Frame,*contra.

*The Court*

laid the rule to show cause; which was afterwards, on full hearing, *discharged;*the court refusing to permit the amount of the judgment to be ascertained in a summary way after so great a lapse of time.
#### Kenneth GOODIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-413.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 13, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, and M. Stephen Turner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD, K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



                            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 Secured Digital Applications,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
Soon-Hock Lim, Chief  Executive  Officer  (principal  executive  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 my knowledge:

         (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.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim

Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2008
2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-20-2004 

# S t or ey v . B ur ns In tl S ec ur ity P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2246

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S t or ey v . B ur n s I n tl S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 13. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/13

### UNITED S TATES COUR T OF APPEAL S FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 03-2246 CURTIS B LAINE ST OREY Appellant
v. BURNS INTERNATI ONAL SECUR ITY SERVICES Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of Pen nsylvania (Civil Action No. 02-cv-00621) Distri ct Judge: Hon. David S. Ce rcone Argued: Februar

y 9, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , Ro th an d M cK ee, Circuit Judges ORDER A MENDI NG OPI NIO N IT I S HEREBY ORDERED , that the Pr ecedenti al Opinion f iled in this case fi led on Decem ber 9, 2004, be amended as follows: In footnot e 2, del ete the sentenc e that reads: “The district

court al so dismi ssed that claim, but it

is an issue on appeal.” And, replace it with: “The district

court also dism issed that c laim , but it is no t an is sue on a ppe al.”IT I S SO ORDERE D. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge DATED 

### : Decem

ber 20, 2004