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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 44 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 44

   Disapproving the final rule of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration titled ``Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2019

 Mr. Levin of Michigan (for himself, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
  Higgins of New York, Ms. Wild, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. 
 Nadler, Ms. Moore, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. McGovern, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Bonamici, 
Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Pocan, Ms. 
Hill of California, Mr. Cohen, Mrs. McBath, and Ms. Stevens) submitted 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the final rule of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration titled ``Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
final rule issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
titled ``Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses'' (84 Fed. Reg. 
380) published on January 25, 2019, and such rule shall have no force 
or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franklin Maddox, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silver-man, J.), rendered December 21, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the police officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see,*CPL 140.10 [1] [b]). Furthermore, the viewing of the defendant shortly after his arrest by one of the officers who had chased him from where he abandoned his automobile was merely confirmatory and was not unduly suggestive *(see, People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262; *People v King,*146 AD2d 714). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 21

                       CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF HAWAII, INC
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                Subsidiaries of
                       Capital Investment of Hawaii, Inc.

         The Registrant, Capital Investment of Hawaii, Inc., has no parent.
The Registrant has the following subsidiaries, all of which are included in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.  All companies are wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Registrant except for Makaha Valley, Incorporated.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       STATE OF
                            NAME                                                    INCORPORATION
                            ----                                                    -------------
          <S>                                                                        <C>
          Latipac Fine Foods, Incorporated                                              Hawaii
          Latipac Mortgage Company, Limited and its wholly owned                        Hawaii
            subsidiary - Latipac, Limited                                             California
          Makaha Valley, Incorporated (85.8% - owned)                                   Hawaii
          Resources, Incorporated                                                       Hawaii
</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12020

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62273-RSR

ANAGO FRANCHISING, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHAZ, LLC, ET AL.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and LINN,* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

 

* The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting 

by designation.

Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Anago Franchising sued Shaz, LLC, and Eco Building Services, LLC, 

alleging that they breached a settlement agreement that the parties had executed to 

resolve a prior lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

Shaz and Eco, and Anago now appeals. Following review of the record and with 

the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.1

Anago’s first argument is that the district court should have given preclusive 

effect to the findings of fact made by a different federal judge in the prior lawsuit 

when ruling on Shaz’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. This argument 

lacks merit because we ultimately held in the prior lawsuit that the district court 

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Shaz’s motion to enforce the 

settlement agreement and accordingly vacated the underlying order. See Anago 

Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1280-81 (11th Cir. 2012). Simply 

stated, a district court order that has been vacated due to lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction does not have any preclusive effect. See Butler v. Eaton, 141 U.S. 240, 

243-44, 11 S.Ct. 985, 986-87 (1891); Quarles v. Sager, 687 F.2d 344, 346 (11th 

Cir. 1982).

Anago’s second assertion is that the district court failed to take judicial 

notice of (a) the now-vacated order in the prior lawsuit and (b) an order entered by 

a third district judge in a similar action between Anago and another franchisee. 

 

1 As we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to address Anago’s arguments.

Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

According to Anago, the district court should have judicially noticed the factual 

findings contained in those two other orders. To the extent that this argument is 

any different than Anago’s initial preclusion argument, it too fails. A district court 

can take judicial notice of another court’s order “only for the limited purpose of 

recognizing the ‘judicial act’ that the order represents or the subject-matter of the 

litigation,” and not for the truth of the facts set forth in that order. United States v. 

Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994).2

AFFIRMED.

 

2 For essentially the same reasons, we reject Anago’s final argument—that orders entered in the 

prior lawsuit and in the similar action should have been judicially noticed to create an issue of 

fact on Anago’s alleged damages.

Case: 14-12020 Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
# C_2016203EN.01002401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/24

---

Article 52

1.   The supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials shall be ensured, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, by means of a common supply policy on the principle of equal access to sources of supply.

2.   For this purpose and under the conditions laid down in this Chapter:

| (a) | all practices designed to secure a privileged position for certain users shall be prohibited; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

all practices designed to secure a privileged position for certain users shall be prohibited;

| (b) | an Agency is hereby established; it shall have a right of option on ores, source materials and special fissile materials produced in the territories of Member States and an exclusive right to conclude contracts relating to the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials coming from inside the Community or from outside. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an Agency is hereby established; it shall have a right of option on ores, source materials and special fissile materials produced in the territories of Member States and an exclusive right to conclude contracts relating to the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials coming from inside the Community or from outside.

The Agency may not discriminate in any way between users on grounds of the use which they intend to make of the supplies requested unless such use is unlawful or is found to be contrary to the conditions imposed by suppliers outside the Community on the consignment in question.

---
# Sheet

United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Marketing ServicePackers and Stockyards Division		&P of &N

*  Some are mailing locations of headquarters, contact the business to verify physical address.If multiple locations or DBAs listed, bond amount shown is generally firm total.		** SOC-Selling on CommissionBOC- Buying on Commission
10-K

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and that |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 24, 2011 |   | /s/Paul N. Wojcik                    |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Date      |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
PLUMS

Santa Rosa – Typical Shape – End View Santa Rosa – Typical Shape – Side View

Red Beaut – Typical Shape

PL-1-IDENT

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY MAY 1990

(Previously May 1972)
PLUMS

Fingernail Injury Mechanical Injury

Bird Injury

PL-2-IDENT

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY MAY 1990

(Previously May 1972)
PLUMS

Deep Suture Fairly Light Colored, Fairly Smooth Scar

Healed Cut

PL-3-IDENT

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY MAY 1990

(Previously May 1972)
PLUMS

Santa Rosa Off-Shape Account Poor Pollinization Santa Rosa Very Off-Shape Account Poor 

Pollinization

PL-4-IDENT

FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY MAY 1990

(Previously May 1972)
PLUM DEFECTS

1. Hail Marks – Damage – Marks are not 

over 1/16” deep, but are rough and 

aggregate an area of more than that of a 

circle 1⁄4” in diameter on a 1-7/8” plum. 

Near upper limit.

2. Split Pit – Damage – Healed crack in 

flesh is more than 1⁄4” long. Not 

borderline.

3. Scars – Damage – Dark or Rough. 

Area exceeds that of a circle 1/4" in 

diameter on a 2” plum. Not a limit.

PL-CP-1

DEFECTS

MAY 1990 (Previously May 1972)
PLUMS

Serious Damage

By Pebbling

Damage by Pebbling

(ignore shape)

U.S. No. 1

Maximum Allowed

En Route or At Destination, score pebbling as a condition factor.

Equal amounts of pebbling on opposite side of fruit.

PLU-CP-2

PEBBLING

JULY 1997
PLUMS

INTERNAL DISCOLORATION

U.S. No. 1

Maximum allowed

Damage

Maximum allowed

PLU-CP-3

INTERNAL DISCOLORATION

MARCH 2000
JOHN K. JOSEPH

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORID A

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4490

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed May 3, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

.

John K. Joseph, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant

Attorney General, T allahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, CJ., LEWIS and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 95-20612

__________________

WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellant,

versus

HEEDINGTON INSURANCE LIMITED; TEXACO, INC.; TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(1-93-CV-515)

______________________________________________

April 9, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel and

relevant portions of the record, we find ourselves essentially in

agreement with the reasoning of the district court on the basis of

which it denied plaintiff recovery. We do not consider plaintiffappellant’s argument respecting the $10,000,000-$11,000,0002

coverage overlap inasmuch as that issue was not raised in the

district court. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Order entered April 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01621-CV

No. 05-15-00363-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.G, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-17435-Z

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record in these cases. Upon review of the clerk’s 

record, the Court concludes that there is a substantial overlap among the issues presented in the 

cases. Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court CONSOLIDATES cause number 05-14-

01621-CV into cause number 05-15-00363-CV. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to 

remove all documents from file number 05-14-01621-CV and refile them in cause number 05-

15-00363-CV and treat cause number 05-14-01621-CV as a closed case. The Court ORDERS 

that all future pleadings be filed only in cause number 05-15-00363-CV. 

The Court’s previous order in cause number 05-14-01621-CV requiring that the 

reporter’s record be filed on or before April 20, 2015 remains in effect, provided, however, that 

the reporter’s record shall be filed in cause number 05-15-00363-CV on or before April 20, 

2015.
The court directs the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of this order to all parties of record 

in cause number 05-14-01621-CV and in cause number 05-15-00363-CV and to Glenda E. 

Finkley, official court reporter of the 256th Judicial District Court.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION 

HARDWARE REQUEST FORM 

DATE: REQUESTOR: 

END USER: END USER PHONE: 

AREA OFFICE: SUB-OFFICE/INSP. POINT: 

SHIP TO ADDRESS: 

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR: SUPERVISOR PHONE: 

FMMI CODE: (for telecom services such as air card, jetpack, or phone) 

TYPE OF HARDWARE REQUESTED: 

☐ DESKTOP ☐ PRINTER - MULTIFUNCTION 

☐ PHONE 

☐ Cell phone 

☐ Smart phone 

☐ New ☐ Upgrade 

☐ AIR CARD 

☐ LAPTOP 

☐ REGULAR ☐ RUGGED 

☐ PRINTER – BLACK & WHITE ☐ JET PACK 

☐ RUGGED TABLET ☐ PRINTER - COLOR ☐ DIGITAL CAMERA ☐ MONITOR 

☐ OTHER HARDWARE (Specify) 

SPECIFICATIONS: (include web link, approximate cost, and your requirements) 

JUSTIFICATION: (include the name of any custom applications that should be installed on the computer for end user) 

If you are requesting equipment for more than one person, list the people you are requesting equipment for: 

QUANTITY: 

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: 

If for FEIRS please provide FEIRS ID:____________________________ FEIRS Home Mkt.: ____________________________________ 

REGIONAL BRANCH CHIEF SIGNATURE: 

DIVISION APPROVER’S SIGNATURE: (Fed/State user = Fed/State Branch Chief; FEIRS user = NPMS; All others = BMS Assoc. Director) 

SC-350 (04/2021) USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1459 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1459

   To support security and law enforcement training and cooperation 
                 between the United States and Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2019

 Mr. Meadows (for himself and Mr. Schneider) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To support security and law enforcement training and cooperation 
                 between the United States and Israel.

    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 ``U.S.-Israel Cooperation Expansion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) On May 9, 2018, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs 
        adopted an amendment stating that it was the policy of the 
        United States to support bilateral cooperation between United 
        States and Israeli law enforcement personnel.
            (2) The United States has a long history of cooperation 
        with Israel.
            (3) The sharing of distinct experiences can promote 
        security against terrorism, peaceful resolutions to community 
        disputes, and the protection of spaces for civil society.
            (4) Congress has supported bilateral cooperation with 
        Israel to combat the threat of illicit cross-border tunneling 
        and the associated trafficking in arms, persons, and militants 
        and to combat threats from unmanned aerial systems.
            (5) The United States supports law enforcement training, 
        cooperation, and education globally.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the United States supports the inclusion of Israel in 
        the International Law Enforcement Academy in Europe; and
            (2) the Secretary of State should support projects in the 
        Middle East through the International Narcotics Control and Law 
        Enforcement program.

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to support bilateral training 
between United States and Israeli law enforcement personnel for the 
purpose of sharing of best practices relating to anti-terrorism, 
community policing, and managing mass casualties.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Gaynor, Respondent, v Nassau County Civil Service Commission, Appellant.

—Appeal by the Nassau County Civil Service Commission from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), entered December 8, 1989.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Goldstein at the Supreme Court. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART ONE

PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLES

TITLE II

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

PROVISIONS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION

Article 7

The Union shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account and in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lionel Correa, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered on November 19, 1987, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant as a predicate felon to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 8 *Vi*to 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 2

LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION, ADOPTION PROCEDURES AND OTHER PROVISIONS

SECTION 2

SECTION 2

PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPTION OF ACTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 295

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall consult each other and by common agreement make arrangements for their cooperation. To that end, they may, in compliance with the Treaties, conclude interinstitutional agreements which may be of a binding nature.

---
# EUR-Lex - 12012M029 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12012M029

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 29 (ex Article 15 TEU) **

*
Official Journal C 326, 26/10/2012, p. 0033 - 0033 *

Article 29

(ex Article 15 TEU)

The Council shall adopt decisions which shall define the approach of the Union to a particular matter of a geographical or thematic nature. Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the Union positions.

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