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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 94 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 94

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

     Mr. Connolly (for himself, Mr. Poe of Texas, and Mr. Quigley) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

    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 ``Cameras in the Courtroom Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more 
of the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```
918 P.2d 226

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Baker v. Bruce Matson Co., Inc.

17090

5/06/96

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 83303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26350]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2023 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 83303]]

                Proclamation 10677 of November 21, 2023

                
Death of Rosalynn Carter

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                Throughout her life as First Lady of Georgia and First 
                Lady of the United States, Rosalynn Carter exemplified 
                hope, warmth, and a steadfast commitment to doing all 
                she could to address many of our society's greatest 
                needs. She was a champion for equal rights and 
                opportunities for women and girls; an advocate for 
                mental health and wellness for all; and a supporter of 
                the often unseen and uncompensated caregivers of our 
                children, aging loved ones, and people with 
                disabilities. Above all, the deep love shared between 
                Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter is the definition of 
                partnership, and their humble leadership is the 
                definition of patriotism.

                As a mark of respect for the memory of Rosalynn Carter, 
                by the authority vested in me as President of the 
                United States by the Constitution and the laws of the 
                United States of America, I hereby order that the flag 
                of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at 
                the White House and upon all public buildings and 
                grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and 
                on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the 
                District of Columbia and throughout the United States 
                and its Territories and possessions from November 25, 
                2023, until sunset, on the day of interment. I also 
                direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for 
                the same length of time at all United States embassies, 
                legations, consular offices, and other facilities 
                abroad, including all military facilities and naval 
                vessels and stations.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                twenty-first day of November, in the year of our Lord 
                two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of 
                the United States of America the two hundred and forty-
                eighth.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 2023-26350
Filed 11-28-23; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Robert R. Livingston Statue
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Erastus Dow Palmer

Materials
    Bronze

Year
    1875

Location
      
Crypt

This statue of Robert R. Livingston was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by New York in 1875.

One of the most prominent statesmen of his day, Robert Livingston came from a most illustrious family. Born in New York City on November 27, 1746, Livingston spent his early years there. He entered King's College (Columbia University) at the age of 15. There he befriended John Jay, with whom he later had a brief partnership. Livingston served from 1775 to 1777 in the Continental Congress, where he was one of the five drafters of the Declaration of Independence. At the time the Declaration was signed, however, he had returned to duties in the provincial assembly.

When the government of New York State was established, Livingston became chancellor, the highest judicial position in the state, and served for 24 years. In that capacity he administered the oath of office to President Washington in 1789. From 1781 to 1783, as secretary of foreign affairs, Livingston transmitted news of European affairs to the Congress. From 1801 to 1804 he served as President Jefferson's minister to France and negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. While living in Paris Livingston met Robert Fulton; he later supported the inventor's construction of the steamboat *Clermont*, named for Livingston's estate.

Livingston's last years were spent experimenting with new agricultural techniques and raising sheep. Before his death on February 27, 1813, he also founded and became the first president of the American Academy of Fine Arts and became a trustee of the New York Society Library. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 295 

Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued work to serve 

our communities, and supporting their use of body worn cameras to 

promote transparency to protect both citizens and officers alike. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, Mr. CLAY, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, and Mr. 

YODER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued 

work to serve our communities, and supporting their 

use of body worn cameras to promote transparency to 

protect both citizens and officers alike. 

Whereas the United States Department of Justice issued a 

report titled, ‘‘Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras’’, 

which details a number of benefits of body-worn cameras, 

including— 

(1) increased transparency and citizen views of police legitimacy; 

(2) improved behavior and civility among both police 

officers and citizens; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 295 IH 

(3) increased evidentiary benefits that expedite resolution of citizen complaints or lawsuits and improving 

evidence for arrest and prosecution; and 

Whereas the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology conducted a 12-month study on the use of bodyworn cameras used by law enforcement in the United 

Kingdom and estimated that the cameras led to a 50 percent reduction in use of force, and in addition, complaints 

against police fell approximately by 90 percent: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes all law enforcement agencies and 

3 officers for their tireless work to protect us and 

4 make our communities safer; 

5 (2) recognizes the potential for the use of body6 worn cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers to 

7 improve community relations, increase transparency, 

8 and protect both citizens and police; and 

9 (3) encourages State and local law enforcement 

10 agencies to consider the use of body-worn cameras, 

11 including policies and protocols to handle privacy, 

12 storage, and other relevant concerns. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARSHALL JERMAINE HARRIS, ) DOC #Y02591, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2139 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 8, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Dan Hallenberg, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Docket ID: FAA-2015-1428 Dir ID: 2015-NM-023-AD
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply543Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Mary Garofalo (not verified)PermalinkAugust 15, 2020 - 12:19pmDuring the late 1980s and early 1990s, I worked for House Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.  When Hearings or bills were submitted for the House floor, we would be working long hours - 18 hours a day.  We also worked closely with the Senate Defense Subcommittee (Appropriations).  This job required very high security clearances, so the staff would have to hand-deliver documents to the Senate side.  Quite a few times, I would courier documents, alone, in the wee hours of the morning, walking the hallways in low lighting.  In fact, some of the rooms of the Capitol had no lighting on at all.  That was eerie in of itself!  However, as I would walk to and from the House and Senate sides, I would hear as if someone was walking behind me.  I would stop thinking it was one of my colleagues or Capitol Police officer, yet, the footsteps would continue for a few seconds more, then stop.  When I would look behind me, no one was there.  This happened on many occasions!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20277 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Israel Aguilar-Arechiga, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-192-1 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Israel AguilarArechiga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguilar-Arechiga has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 27, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20277 Document: 00516625837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2023
No. 22-20277 

2 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-20277 Document: 00516625837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2023
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gus D. Halas, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of T-3 Energy Services, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.       */*s/ GUS D. HALAS         Gus D. Halas    Chief Executive Officer    May 7, 2007
20286

#### State v. Muramoto

Affirmed
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 02-20301

Summary Calendar

____________________

LOUIS DONNELL TALBERT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-00-CV-2260)

_________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Donnell Talbert, Texas prisoner # 805926, was convicted

of aggravated robbery. He appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition as time-barred. (Talbert's motion to supplement

the record with the state court’s mandate from his direct appeal

and from the denial of his first state application for

postconviction relief is DENIED as moot, as discussed infra.) 
2

Our court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on two

issues: (1) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issues a

mandate from the denial of a state application for postconviction

relief; and (2) whether, for purposes of determining the

limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the state

application remains pending until the mandate issues. 

“The time during which a properly filed application for State

post-conviction or other collateral review ... is pending shall not

be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection”.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Talbert contends that the state court’s

judgment remains pending until the mandate issues, or, if no

mandate issues, for 25 days following that judgment pursuant to

TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(b) and 79.1. 

We need not determine whether a state habeas application is

“pending” until either a mandate issues or 25 days from the state

court judgment. First, no mandate from the state court’s denial of

Talbert’s first application for postconviction relief is contained

in the record; and, in response to the motion to supplement the

record with the mandate, the appellee has stated that no mandate

issued. Second, even assuming Talbert was entitled to 25 days of

tolling for the issuance of the mandate pursuant to Rules 18.1(b)

and 79.1, but see TEX. R. APP. P. 79.2, he concedes that his § 2254

petition had to have been filed by 11 June 2000. Talbert failed,

however, to file his petition until 26 June, at the earliest.
3

Therefore, regardless of whether his state petition remained

“pending”, it was untimely. 

Talbert raises several other issues. Because they are beyond

the scope of the COA, we do not address them. E.g., Lackey v.

Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1997) (review limited to the

issues specified in COA). 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED
Via electronic mail to: Dana.coale@usda.gov

Ms. Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service

United States Department of Agriculture

USDA-AMS-1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250-0225 

 Re: Request for a hearing to amend Federal Milk Marketing Orders 5, 6, and 7

Dear Ms. Coale,

 This letter confirms the support of Select Milk Producers, Inc., for a hearing to amend the

southeastern US federal milk orders as requested by DCMA in the request letter from Attorney

Marvin Beshore. This further confirms our support for the five proposals submitted with the

hearing request. We respectfully request that a hearing be held on an emergency basis to

expedite the relief requested to our orders.

 Thank you.

Chris Allen 

Sr. Director Industry Relations and Analytics

Select Milk Producers, Inc. 

5151 Belt Line Rd, Ste 455 

Dallas, TX 75254

SETTING A HIGHER STANDARD

EST. 1994
27564

#### State v. Kaneao

Affirmed
14CFR Part 39

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration



# Gill IDocket No. FAA-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-185-ADI 14910-13-Pj

ICU"RE~'CE5 rm<GS,·.,OOL

RlN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 

### Series Airplanes, Airbus Model 

### .A..300 84-600 Series Airplanes, Airbus Model AJOOB4-600R Series Airplanes, and A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) for the products '- ~- 

## '" listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing air.vorthiness 

### '--("
, V OUIING SV'ltIOL

condition as: information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority of another country to identify 

# h(,HIl\ .·lTl~L"'S'" I 

# JI, and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe '~~'I~e---- 

# I, I ln~nNG_~'·MII(ll 

## ~I-.\H (,\ During a maintenance check perfonned by anA31 0 operator, the recommended modification ofthe lower attachment beam ofrack 101VU by accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2076 was embodied on the aeroplane, leading the operator to find three cracks on the FR15Acrossbeam above the NLG [nose landing gear] box atthe splicing with rack 107VU fitting. This condition, ifnot detected and corrected, could degrade the slructural integrity ofthe crossbeam on NLG FR15A web attaclunent fitting ofrack I07VU. Rack 107VU contains major airworthiness system components whose functioning could be adversely affected by the loss of the attachment filling. 

### A\ill ~ TNrnAlS-"SlG 

# --/'71;'1.1 m 

# )- /11,v
1l1ING~Yf'OOL
l"rnAI~~I(;