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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

To amend title IV-A of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2019

Mr. Arrington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title IV-A of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Family Resources and 
Training Options Act''.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING PROGRAM INTEGRITY THROUGH IMPROPER PAYMENTS 
              REVIEW.

    Section 404 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Applicability of Improper Payments Laws.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Improper Payments Information Act of 
        2002 and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 
        2010 shall apply to a State in respect of the State program 
        funded under this part in the same manner in which such Acts 
        apply to a Federal agency.
            ``(2) Regulations.--Within 2 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall prescribe 
        regulations governing how a State reviews and reports improper 
        payments under the State program funded under this part.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2019.
                                 <all>
```
Dear Stakeholder,

The Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) will offer a webinar on the newly published regulations and 

how to apply for a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificate. The webinar will be held live on January 30, 

2020 from 2-3 pm EST.

To register for the webinar please send an e-mail to the PVPO and title the message “PVPO Webinar 

Registration”. In the body of the message please state that you request registration to the training. 

Once you are registered you will receive the videoconference link and phone number by e-mail. The 

registration deadline is January 21, 2020 at 6 pm EST.

If you have questions, please contact our office using the numbers and links below.

Thank you for your interest in the PVPO,

USDA, AMS, S&T Program, Plant Variety Protection Office

1400 Independence Ave, SW - Room 4512, Mail Stop 0274

Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 260-8983

PVPO E-mail

PVPO Website
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00103-CR

IN RE PATRICK KIRK PITZER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Patrick Kirk Pitzer, filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on 

March 26, 2015, complaining about the Brazos County District Clerk’s failure to 

“transmit” relator’s “MOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS” to the trial court for consideration. Relator has been appointed 

both trial and appellate counsel to represent him in connection with the pending 

criminal charges. In fact, relator’s appellate counsel has filed an appellate brief 

challenging relator’s conviction for arson.

We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue raised should be 

presented by relator’s counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See 
In re Pitzer Page 2

Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc); see also In re Fisk, 

No. 04-15-00139-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2778, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 25, 

2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam, not designated for publication); In re 

Porter, No. 14-15-00014-CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 333, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] Jan. 15, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam, not designated for 

publication). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se 

mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this Court’s review. See 

Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498; Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); see also In re Fisk, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2778, at **1-2; In re 

Porter, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 333, at *1. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

(Chief Justice Gray concurring with a note)*

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2015

[OT06]

*(Chief Justice Gray concurs that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. 

A separate opinion or order will not issue.)
In re Pitzer Page 3
# C_2016202EN.01039701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/397 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/397

---

Article 18

Right to asylum

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Treaties').

---
# C_2016202EN.01016201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/162

---

Article 263

(ex Article 230 TEC)

(ex Article 230 TEC)

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall review the legality of legislative acts, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament and of the European Council intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It shall also review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.

vis-à-vis

vis-à-vis

It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

The Court shall have jurisdiction under the same conditions in actions brought by the Court of Auditors, by the European Central Bank and by the Committee of the Regions for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives.

Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.

Acts setting up bodies, offices and agencies of the Union may lay down specific conditions and arrangements concerning actions brought by natural or legal persons against acts of these bodies, offices or agencies intended to produce legal effects in relation to them.

The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

390 KA 09-01812
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES A. RIOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered April 17, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to appeal. Taking into account “the nature and terms of the [plea] agreement and the age, experience and background of [defendant]” ( People v Seaberg
, 74 NY2d 1, 11), we conclude that the record of the plea colloquy “establish[es] that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” ( People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256; cf. People v Moyett , 7 NY3d 892, 893). Defendant’s further contention that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution. That challenge “is encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal and is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as [defendant] did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground” ( People v Bryant , 87 AD3d 1270, 1271, lv denied 18 NY3d 881). In addition, “the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe” ( People v Ruffins , 78 AD3d 1627, 1628).

Entered: March 23, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1552 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to furnish headstones or markers to private cemeteries for graves 

of certain veterans without next of kin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mr. TIPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones or markers to private cemeteries for graves of certain veterans 

without next of kin. 

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 ‘‘Private Cemeteries 

5 Honoring Veterans in the Absence of Next of Kin Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1552 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUESTS BY PRIVATE CEMETERIES FOR 

2 HEADSTONES OR MARKERS FOR GRAVES OF 

3 CERTAIN VETERANS. 

4 Section 2306(d) of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(6) If the Secretary is unable to identify any next 

8 of kin of a deceased individual covered by this subsection, 

9 a private cemetery may request the Secretary to furnish— 

10 ‘‘(A) a headstone or marker for the grave of the 

11 deceased individual pursuant to paragraph (1); or 

12 ‘‘(B) a medallion or other device to signify the 

13 deceased individual’s status as a veteran pursuant to 

14 paragraph (4).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOMER W. WALKER, Defendant - Appellant, REGINALD HUDSON, Garnishee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-842-5-BR) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Homer W. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the United States on its action seeking to collect a debt from Appellant in the amount of $8530. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Walker , No. CA-96-842-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
OMB No. 0581-0178

Form K-3 (Exp. 3/31/2024) Destroy previous editions.

FAR WEST SPEARMINT OIL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

6601 W. Deschutes Ave., Suite C-2

Kennewick, WA 99336

Phone: (509) 585-5460 or Fax: (509) 585-2671

Application for Additional Base

CLASS 3 (NATIVE)

Pursuant to section 985.153(c)(2) of Marketing Order No. 985, I hereby request that 

the appropriate quantity of additional base be issued to me effective June 1, 20___.

Additional Base Will be Added to:

(If more than one entity, please circle entity to receive additional base)

Signed ____________________________________________

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0581-

0178. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information.

 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American 

Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of 

the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.
Exhibit 10.5.1

Amendment to the Gas Purchase Agreement dated November 1, 1990, as amended,  between Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. (successor to Mobil Oil  Canada) And Cascade Natural Gas Corporation  DETM
Agreement No. GSA 944

This Amendment to the Gas Purchase Agreement dated November 1, 1990, as amended, is made and entered into this 30 day of August 2001, by and between
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. ("Seller") and Cascade Natural Gas Corporation ("Buyer").

Recitals:

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties hereto, said parties agree as follows:





---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first referenced above.

|Seller                                    |  | Buyer                                          
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|DUKE ENERGY TRADING AND MARKETING, L.L.C. |  | CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION                
|                                          |  |                                                
|Name:                                     |  |                                                
|                                          |  |                                                
|Title:                                    |  | Director, Marketing, Pacific Northwest Division
|                                          |  |                                                
|Date:                                     |  |                                                
|                                          |  |                                                

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Richard D. Shapiro, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1990, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

This is claimant’s second application to reopen a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated due to misconduct. In both applications claimant wanted to submit evidence that it was not he, but rather a co-worker, who closed the register early. Although the first application was granted, and the Board adhered to its original decision, the second application was properly denied. Not only did claimant fail to submit any new evidence to the Board to support his request that it reconsider its prior decision *(see, Matter of Cruz [Levine],*49 AD2d 978), but claimant repeatedly testified during the hearing that he was the one that closed the register early so that he could catch his train home. At no time during the hearing did claimant ever mention that it was the co-worker who actually closed the register. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion by the Board in rejecting the application *(see, Matter of Dixon [Levine],*41 AD2d 868, *appeal dismissed*33 NY2d 644, *cert denied*414 US 1133).

Casey, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                    23,988,407
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,051,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                  36,365
<INVENTORY>                                1,309,877
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          27,880,395
<PP&E>                                     1,761,288
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,039,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            32,670,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5,225,429
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        177,023
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                26,766,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              32,670,007
<SALES>                                    1,543,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,543,724
<CGS>                                        389,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                672,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              871,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                 327,846
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          543,277
<DISCONTINUED>                               (17,982)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            3,578,834
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               4,104,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.23
                                        



</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 22000D1123(05) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22000D1123(05)

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 80/1999 of 25 June 1999 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 296 , 23/11/2000 P. 0035 - 0036 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 80/1999

of 25 June 1999

amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision No 34/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 26 March 1999(1).

(2) Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 2 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72) in Annex VI to the Agreement before the heading "ACTS OF WHICH THE CONTRACTING PARTIES SHALL TAKE DUE ACCOUNT": "2a. 398 L 0049: Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46)."

Article 2

The texts of Directive 98/49/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 June 1999, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 25 June 1999.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

F. Barbaso

(1) OJ L 266, 19.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.