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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1199 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1199

    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study 
 regarding the accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans 
               Affairs to individuals with disabilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2019

  Mrs. Luria introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study 
 regarding the accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans 
               Affairs to individuals with disabilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VA Website Accessibility Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. STUDY REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF WEBSITES OF THE DEPARTMENT 
              OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

    (a) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall examine all 
websites (including attached files and web-based applications) of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to determine whether such websites are 
accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).
    (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after completing the study 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress 
regarding such study. The report shall include the following:
            (1) A list of each website, file, or web-based application 
        described in subsection (a) that is not accessible to 
        individuals with disabilities in accordance with section 508 of 
        the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).
            (2) For each website, file, or web-based application 
        identified under paragraph (1), a description of the barriers 
        to bringing such website, file, or web-based application into 
        compliance with the requirements of such section, including 
        barriers relating to staffing.
            (3) The plan of the Secretary to bring each website, file, 
        or web-based application identified in the list under paragraph 
        (1) into compliance with the requirements of section 508 of the 
        Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).
    (c) Definition of Website.--In this section, the term ``website'' 
includes a kiosk at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility, 
the use of which is required to check in for scheduled appointments.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23482-23483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9452]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or

[[Page 23483]]

the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of 
the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 14, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President), 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. IBERIABANK Corporation, Lafayette, Louisiana; to merge with 
Florida Gulf Bancorp and thereby indirectly acquire Florida Gulf Bank, 
both in Fort Myers, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 16, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-9452 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Raul Becerra 

CastorenaAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Monday, April 6, 2015

No. 04-14-00671-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Raul Becerra CASTORENA,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11297CR

The Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

John Price has filed a request for a sixty day extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record. We grant the motion in part and deny it in part. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (extension of 

time to file record in ordinary appeal must not exceed 30 days).

We order Price to file the record by April 30, 2015. Because of the extraordinary delay 

in completing the record in this case, Price is advised that no further extensions of time will be 

granted and we order Price to give priority to completing the record in this appeal. If Price is 

unable to perform all his duties and complete the record in a timely manner, he must take 

whatever steps are necessary, including requesting a substitute reporter or hiring competent 

assistance, to file the record by the date ordered. 

Price is ordered to obtain from the attorney for the State the agreed replacement copy of 

State’s Exhibit 2 and include it in the record. Price is ordered to file the record with a 

placeholder for Defendant’s exhibit 3, indicating the exhibit is missing.
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court. See 

TEX .R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective
Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beth M. Halberstadt, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Beth M. HalberstadtBeth M. HalberstadtChief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2007
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00271-CV

In re Christopher L. Graham

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2013-519, HONORABLE LLOYD DOUGLAS SHAVER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

On April 22, 2014, appellant Christopher L. Graham filed a notice of appeal stating

he was appealing from an order of contempt signed April 8, 2014. Graham referenced two trial

court cause numbers—CR2013-519, to which we assigned cause number 03-14-00271-CV, and

CR2013-366, to which we assigned cause number 03-14-00270-CV. Graham sought to proceed as

an indigent, and we abated the cause to the trial court to hold a hearing on any contests to Graham’s

affidavit of indigence. Contests were filed, a hearing was held, the trial court determined that Graham

was not entitled to proceed as an indigent, Graham sought our review, and on October 9, 2014, we

upheld the trial court’s decision.

On October 21, we sent Graham notice that the clerk’s record and reporter’s record

in both causes were overdue and that we had been informed that he had not made arrangements to

pay for those records. Graham responded, referencing both sets of cause numbers, and stated that

he did wish to pursue his appeal and that he would make payment arrangements once he received

payment information. On December 21, Graham, again referencing both sets of cause numbers,
sent a letter showing he had made payments for the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Those

records were filed in cause number 03-14-00270-CV, but nothing was filed in this cause number.

On February 3, 2015, the trial court clerk sent notice explaining that Graham had only paid for the

clerk’s record in cause number 03-14-00270-CV (trial court cause CR2013-366) and that Graham

had been informed that payment was still outstanding for the record in this cause number. A copy

of that letter was sent to Graham, but he has not responded.

Having carefully reviewed the various records filed thus far, it appears that the order

of contempt from which Graham is appealing was entered in cause number 03-14-00270-CV, not this

cause. However, Graham has not done thisCourt the courtesyofinforming us of this fact or informing

us that he only wished to pursue his appeal in the other cause number. This Court could have been

spared the needless expenditure of time in examining the matter had Graham discharged his duty to

respond to this Court’s communications, and we caution Graham against further disregarding

communications from this Court and the trial court. We dismissthis appeal for want of prosecution.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 10, 2015

2
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-31072 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TELLY GALLIEN,

Defendant-Appellant

(Consolidated with)

 

No. 04-31075

 Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

TRAVIS GALLIEN,

Defendant-Appellant

(Consolidated with)

 

No. 04-31077

 Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

versus
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

SIDNEY GALLIEN,

Defendant-Appellant

(Consolidated with)

 

No. 04-31083

 Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

GEORGE CELESTINE,

Defendant-Appellant

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:01-CR-60127-5

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, George Celestine, Telly Gallien,

Travis Gallien, and Sidney Gallien appeal the denial of their

motion to dismiss the case against them, which was based on double

jeopardy grounds, following a mistrial. The defendants argue that

the prosecution intentionally provoked them into moving for a
3

mistrial and that the district court erred by misapplying the

principles given in Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982). 

The appellants have not shown that the district court’s denial

of their motion to dismiss was erroneous. The district court’s

finding that the prosecution did not intentionally provoke the

defendants into moving for a mistrial was not clearly erroneous.

See Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 675-76; United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d

1339, 1342 (5th Cir. 1996). To the contrary, the record strongly

supports the district court’s findings concerning the inadvertence

of the error that led to the mistrial and the parties’ desires, or

lack thereof, for the mistrial. Our review of the record and the

district court’s detailed reasons for judgment also refutes the

appellants’ contention that the denial of their motion was grounded

in a misapplication of Kennedy. 

The appellants have shown no error in the judgment of the

district court. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Galveston County Judge Mark Henry, Galveston County 

Commissioner Ryan Dennard, Galveston County Commissioner Joe 

Giusti, Galveston County Commissioner Stephen Holmes, and 

Galveston County Commissioner Ken Clark, in Their Official 

Capacities as the Galveston County Commissioners Court

Appellate case number: 01-14-00820-CV

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

Date motion filed: February 19, 2015

Party filing motion: Relators

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle

Date: April 14, 2015
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 KIT CARSON ELECTRIC

8 COOPERATIVE, INC., a New Mexico 

9 Corporation, and BOBBY ORTEGA,

10 MANUEL MEDINA, FRANCIS CORDOVA,

11 TOBY MARTINEZ, ARTURO RODARTE,

12 AMBROSE MASCARENAS, CHRIS DURAN,

13 JERRY SMITH, and BRUCE JASSMAN, each

14 in his official capacity as a trustee of KIT

15 CARSON ELECTRIC CORP., INC.,

16 Petitioners-Appellees,

17 v. NO. 31,469 

18 MARIA ADANG and PETER ADANG,

19 Husband and Wife,,

20 Respondents-Appellants,

21 and

22 LINDA R. BENCE, ANDREW D. CHAVEZ,

23 JODE CISNEROS, DAVID R. GENTH,

24 ERNESTO GONZALES, RITA LARROW,

25 JEROME LUCERO, DAVID RAEL, and

26 KATHLEEN VANDERBROOK,

27 Respondents.

28 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY

29 Sarah C. Backus, District Judge
2

1 Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP

2 John F. McCarthy, Jr.

3 Santa Fe, NM

4 for Appellees

5 Maria and Peter Adang

6 Ranchos de Taos, NM

7 Pro Se Appellants

8 MEMORANDUM OPINION

9 FRY, Judge.

10 Appellants Peter and Maria Adang appeal the district court’s order granting a

11 preliminary injunction. [RP 243-45] On October 6, 2011, this Court filed a notice of

12 proposed summary disposition proposing to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final

13 order. Appellants timely filed a memorandum in response to our notice of proposed

14 summary disposition, which we have given due consideration.

15 For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we

16 dismiss this appeal for lack of a final appealable order.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 

19 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

20 WE CONCUR:
3

1 

2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

3 

4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
Daily Boxed Beef Report Specifications – Morning (LM_XB402) and Afternoon 

(LM_XB403) Versions Updated August 2015

Criteria Applicable to the Entire Report:

 First time sales by firms slaughtering 125,000+ per year 

 Negotiated sales type

 Delivery within 21 days

 Destination is within the United States

 Branded product such as Certified Angus Beef is not included

 All product is fresh except frozen 50s and frozen back ribs

 Aged product is not included

 Both the morning and afternoon reports include sales since 1:30 p.m. 

CST the previous business day. In other words, the afternoon report 

includes the morning report plus the next 4 hours business. 

Criteria Specific to Individual Item Sections:

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

Choice Cuts Section:

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

 Choice product 

 Native (non-dairy bred) steer/heifer source

 Regular size box, except for small box on some thin meats

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

Select Cuts Section:

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

 Select product 

 Native (non-dairy bred) steer/heifer source

 Regular size box, except for small box on some thin meats

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

CHOICE, SELECT AND UNGRADED CUTS Section:

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

 Choice, Select, and ungraded product used

 Native (non-dairy bred) steer/heifer source

 Regular size box, except for small box on some thin meats

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

GROUND BEEF - STEER and HEIFER SOURCE Section:

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

 Native and dairy bred steer/heifer source used

 40 pound box minimum and 10# chub, fine and coarse grind

 Includes both LFTB blended, and LFTB free product

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

BLENDED GROUND BEEF – STEER, HEIFER and COW SOURCE Section:

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

 Native and dairy bred steer, heifer, cow or bull source used

 40 pound box minimum and 10# chub, fine and coarse grind

 Includes both LFTB blended, and LFTB free product

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

BEEF TRIMMINGS Section:

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

 Native and dairy bred steer/heifer and cow source used

 Fresh 50s limited to combos, frozen to boxed

 Both tested and untested product is normally included. However product 

verified as untested without adequate price support may be excluded.

3/70/20 Confidentiality info:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/ConfidentialityGuidelines.

pdf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL GERA (DECEASED),

DOROTHY GERA, MICHAEL G. GERA

AND JOHN M. GERA

 v.

MARYLOU RAINONE, D.O., ROBERT

DECOLLI, JR., D.O., AND SCHUYLKILL

MEDICAL CENTER,

 

PETITION OF: MICHAEL G. GERA AND

JOHN M. GERA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 944 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

MICHAEL GERA, DECEASED,

DOROTHY GERA, MICHAEL G. GERA,

AND JOHN M. GERA

 v.

MARYLOU RAINONE, D.O., ROBERT

DECOLLI, JR., D.O., SCHUYLKILL

MEDICAL CENTER,

 

PETITION OF: MICHAEL G. GERA AND

JOHN M. GERA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 945 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court
[944 MAL 2014 and 945 MAL 2014] - 2

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 May 10, 2007
    
    /s/ Matthew J. Assiff

Matthew J. AssiffSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 10, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 10, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0311. DANIEL ERIC COBBLE v. STANLEY WILLIAMS, WARDEN, GEORGIA

STATE PRISON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015NH3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00007-CV

Wax-Mid, Inc., Appellant

v.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-08-000516, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal. We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

_____________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: May 12, 2011