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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1274 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1274

                      To repeal Public Law 107-40.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

Ms. Lee of California (for herself, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. 
 McCollum, Mr. Welch, Ms. Moore, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Takano, Ms. Norton, 
Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Massie, Mrs. 
    Watson Coleman, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Rush, Mr. Himes, Ms. Omar, Mr. 
  Blumenauer, Mr. Tonko, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Pocan, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rose of New York, Mr. 
    Serrano, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Amash, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Clark of 
 Massachusetts, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Cicilline, 
Mr. Hastings, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Lewis, Mr. 
 Khanna, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Pingree, Ms. Waters, and Mr. 
  Schrader) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                      To repeal Public Law 107-40.

    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 ``Repeal of the Authorization for Use 
of Military Force''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING.

    Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
(Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), signed into law on September 
18, 2001, has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization 
for the use of military force and such an interpretation is 
inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all 
laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government 
of the United States.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-40.

    Effective 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 
1541 note) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

ERIKA ROXANNE GROVES,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2636 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 109 DB 2019

Attorney Registration No. 206668

(Lawrence County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2019, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, Erika Roxanne Groves is placed on 

temporary suspension until further action by this Court. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5). She 

shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent’s rights to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to 

request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this order are specifically 

preserved. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(4) and (f)(6).

The Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline with the meaning of 

Pa.R.D.E. 402, pertaining to confidentiality.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Billy Wayne Williams, * From the 32nd District

 Court of Mitchell County,

 Trial Court No. 15,775.

No. 11-14-00128-CV * April 16, 2015

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

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

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

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

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we 

reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00452-CR

Antonio Perez Lopez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. D-1-DC-13-904067, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for pro 

se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with this 

Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
2

written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before April 27, 2015. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on April 17, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Do Not Publish
WR-59,201-03

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/15/2015 4:22:57 PM

Accepted 4/15/2015 4:40:50 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/15/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,956,588
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    155,130
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         375,818
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       241,755
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,729,291
<COMMON>                                        48,510
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      695,723
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            292,191
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,036,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           81,465
<PREFERRED>                                    119,954
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,058,644
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             129,631
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  71,823
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  100,667
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        2,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,128,683
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,729,291
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,666,303
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            88,703
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,329,670
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,418,373
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        247,930
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 698
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 248,628
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       107,082
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,546
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     15,365
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  126,181
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        90,834
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,394
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         356,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,503)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,693
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,693)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,693)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,693)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00


</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Public Notice 7856]

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by section 7086(b)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74, Div. I), the Delegation of Authority in the President's Memorandum of July 21, 2010, and Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 245-1, I hereby determine and certify that the Palestinians have not, since the date of enactment of that Act, obtained in the UN or any specialized agency thereof the same standing as member states or full membership as a state outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, and waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204, Title X.

This waiver shall be effective for a period of six months.

                    This determination shall be reported to the Congress promptly and published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: April 9, 2012.

William J. Burns,

Deputy Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-9932 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
Order entered September 22, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01545 - CV IN THE MATTER OF DEMPSTER A. ROSS On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Col lin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416 - 02315 - 2019

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than November 20, 2020. As the brief was first due June 19, 2020, we caution that further extensions will not be granted absent exigent circumstances

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                ---------------


                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

               [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2002


Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52499-0001

Re:  Separate Account VA D
     Registration on Form N-4  SEC File No. 33-94489

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Transamerica Access Variable Annuity
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the Policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the Policies and/or riders to the Policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of  profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the Variable Account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including Premium and other Taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Any applicable rider fees or charges

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (iv)
is established in the pricing of the Transamerica Access Variable Annuity, to
achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.
<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2002
Page 2

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges.  In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
Policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.



/s/ Calvin R. Birkey
---------------------------------------
Calvin R. Birkey, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
?L^TO^Jire_aQ_re^abMiriin^ noncimplfancfl. \A)rjj

APR 15 2015

Dmi^yo^C^rJClerlC, AbsiAcosii,Gtsrk

33J2LJlJhM£JM^

errors an^ hade OLd.^^

A\J_LMrect^ Ufr.M- as Xhade, CarrafWtonflf groundsT uiould lite,

A^bJbanK.^^

Hate: Ho thanbes ;n4V\e Utordinb toere made. *>kl 4he Sa^e.

-3Crtf made cooM \o Ws. S;nC£(fc(Y

'" " • id

EnU.

Prod<edur«. \e4\er.

r
Il^i^M-^udi: —

PUoae. &&± one, or praujde, Tn-W*^to° •

VD ResuW.4 ^Ake^M(diQg-Lp.uii^lf.cL—

3,.CXfee^bM)i_to—-_—: ————

9,n„0blk!

5,Q See Aokc>-
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Amendment to Employment Agreement



  
  
 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 March 25, 2002 
  
 Mr. Alex Yemenidjian 
 c/o Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. 
 2500 Broadway Street 
 Santa Monica, CA 90404 
  
 Dear Mr. Yemenidjian: 
  
 Kindly refer to the
Employment Agreement dated as of April 28, 1999 (the “Employment Agreement”) between you (“Executive”) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (the “Company”). 
  
 Effective as of the date hereof, the Company and Executive mutually agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. The term of the Employment Agreement is hereby extended so that it will now expire April 30, 2007. 
  
 The word “Term” as used in the Employment Agreement shall be deemed to include the term as hereby extended. 
  
 2. Except as herein specifically provided, the Employment Agreement shall not be amended in any respect whatsoever and shall continue
in full force and effect. 
  
 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding and agreement, please so indicate by
signing in the place for your signature below. 
  

	 	Ve
	ry truly yours, 
 

  
 
	 METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER INC. 
 
	 
	 By:
 	 	 /s/    WILLIAM A. JONES
            
 

	  	 	     William A. Jones
 Senior Executive
Vice President
 

 
  
  
  
  
 AGREED: 
  
  
 
	 
	 /S/    ALEX YEMENIDJIAN
 

	 Alex Yemenidjian
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: ARMANDO AVALOS.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00368-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120C07317)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01033701.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

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

39.   Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference takes note of the Commission's intention to continue to consult experts appointed by the Member States in the preparation of draft delegated acts in the financial services area, in accordance with its established practice.

---
# 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 SEVEN

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 344

(ex Article 292 TEC)

(ex Article 292 TEC)

Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Alexander, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree for the fatal stabbing of his girlfriend. There is no merit to his contention that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence of an intent to kill. Such intent may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, including the conduct of the accused in inflicting the fatal wounds *(see, People v Jackson,*18 NY2d 516, 520; *People v Horton,*18 NY2d 355, 359, *cert denied*387 US 934; *People v Milea,*112 AD2d 1011, 1013, *lv denied*66 *NY2d*921). Evidence that defendant threatened to kill the victim; that he grabbed a knife from her and stabbed her 15 times in the chest, abdomen and back; and that he fled from the scene with the knife in his hand was legally sufficient to support a finding that defendant acted intentionally.

The jury’s rejection of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was not contrary to the weight of evidence. Given the numerous conflicts between the testimony of an eyewitness and that of defendant, the jury’s rejection of defendant’s version of the events was not unreasonable. Additionally, defendant failed to establish a reasonable explanation for his claimed emotional disturbance *(see, People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, 678, *cert denied*449 US 842; *People v Glaser,*168 AD2d 941).

*997The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant to be cross-examined regarding an alleged assault upon the victim two months prior to the homicide *(see, People v Wright,*167 AD2d 959, *lv denied*77 NY2d 845; *People v Castrechino,*134 AD2d 877, *lv denied*70 NY2d 1005). Defendant failed to preserve the issue that his absence from the *Sandoval*hearing denied him the right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings and we decline to review it in the interest of justice *(see, People v Cole,*174 AD2d 970 [decided herewith]; *People v Favor,*172 AD2d 1052; *People v Dunbar,*172 AD2d 1006). We also decline to review the unpreserved issues that the court erred in its instructions on intent and extreme emotional disturbance. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7133

DAVID ALAN LEARY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greensville

Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-1657-AM)

Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Alan Leary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We note that in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 638 n.14

(1980), the Supreme Court declined to decide whether due process

requires lesser included instructions in non-capital state trials.

Thus, Leary cannot meet the requirements of § 2254(d)(1).

2

PER CURIAM:

David Alan Leary, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* See Leary

v. Garraghty, No. CA-00-1657-AM (E.D. Va. June 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED