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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4322 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4322

 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

  Mr. Carbajal (for himself and Mr. Smucker) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, 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 ``Home for the Brave Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 15. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts received 
by any member of a household or family as disability compensation under 
chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, or dependency and indemnity 
compensation under chapter 13 of such title, shall not be considered as 
income of such household or family for purposes of--
            ``(1) determining the eligibility of such family or 
        household for assistance under any program for housing 
        assistance administered by the Secretary;
            ``(2) the amount of benefits payable to or on behalf of 
        such family or household under such program; or
            ``(3) the amount of rent paid by such family or household 
        for occupancy of a dwelling unit assisted under any such 
        program.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Harold LENIGER, Petitioner, H. C. McLeod, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12713.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 11, 1959.

Harold Leniger, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Harold Leniger, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, has filed herein a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking his release.

It is alleged that his restraint is by reason of a judgment entered in the district court of Logan County, Oklahoma, on or about November 25, 1939, based on a verdict of a jury finding him guilty of mur*930der, and where he was assessed a life sentence.

For grounds for release it is alleged that the commitment by which he is held in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary is null and void for the reason that it is not a certified copy of the judgment and sentence.

To the petition the Attorney General has filed a response, to which is attached a certified copy of the judgment and sentence entered in case No. 1600, State v. Harold Leniger, on November 25, 1939, wherein it sets out that on said day the defendant was found guilty by a jury on a charge of murder and assessed a sentence of life imprisonment. Judgment was entered accordingly.

Respondent sets out that it is a fact that the original copy of the judgment and sentence had been removed from the prison files by some person unknown to the record clerk, but that on discovery another certified copy of the original judgment and sentence to replace the one which had been removed, was obtained.

We note from the copy of the judgment and sentence in question attached to the response, that the court clerk of the district court of Logan County attached her certificate to the copy of the original judgment and sentence.

From the matters stated it is apparent that the Warden’s records on petitioner are once again in order and complete. However, the loss of the judgment once received and where the original might be found in the files in case No. 1600 in the district court of Logan County or recorded in that office, would not entitle petitioner to the writ.

In Ex parte Whitson, 70 Okl.Cr. 79, 104 P.2d 980, this court said:

> “Habeas corpus does not lie to' correct mere irregularities of procedure, where 'there is jurisdiction. There must be illegality or irregularity sufficient to render the proceedings void.” Writ denied."

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
#### J. C. Smith & Wallace Company *v.*Nathan J. Goldner and Frederick Isaacson.

[Presented March 22d, 1921.

Decided March 23d, 1921.]

1. A sale in bulk is void as to creditors of the vendor, unless the provisions of the Bulk Sales act of 1915 are complied with.

2. Though a sale in bulk is void as to the vendor’s creditors, unless the provisions of the act of 1915 are complied with this does not give creditors a claim upon the purchase price.

3. Where a sale is void under the Bulk Sales act of 1915, creditors may execute their judgment by a levy and sale of the goods, or if unable to do so, may cause the writ to be returned *nulla bona*and proceed in equity against the purchaser for the value of the goods as transferred without consideration with, intent to defraud creditors.

On motion for preliminary injunction.

*Messrs. Reed &*Reynolds, for the motion.

*Mr. Abraham Henig, contra.*

Baokes, Y. C.

The defendant Nathan. Goldner sold his stock of merchandise, in bulk, to the defendant Isaacson. The purchaser failed to demand and receive a list, in writing, of the vendor’s creditors and to notify them of the proposed sale, as required by the Bulk Sales act of 1915. *P. L. p. 377.*The complainant recovered a judg*505ment against Goldner and levied on the merchandise, the subject of the sale, and then filed this bill to compel the defendants to discover the articles sold, the terms of sale, and the amount of purchase price remaining unpaid, that defendants be decreed to pay the judgment* and for an injunction to restrain the payment of the unpaid purchase price. The present motion is for a temporary injunction restraining the payment of the balance of the purchase price. The motion must be denied.

A sale in bulk is void as to creditors unless the provisions of the act are complied with, but this does not give creditors a claim upon the purchase price. The act implies that, the sale being void, creditors have a remedy at law and in equity—that is, as I take it, creditors may execute their judgment at law by a levy and sale of the- goods, or, if unable to execute the judgment by a levy and sale, they may cause the writ to be returned *ntulia Iona*and proceed in equity against the purchaser for the value of the goods, exactly as if the goods had been transferred without consideration, with intent to cheat and defraud creditors.

The bill may be amended to charge Isaacson, the purchaser, with the value of the goods.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2008 – Gόrażdże Cement v Commission**

**(Case T-193/07)**

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions – Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned
– Criteria (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9(1) and (3) and 11(2))
(see paras 21, 27, 44-45)*

2.                     *Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Directive 2003/87 – National allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission
allowances (NAP) – NAP notification procedure (Arts 175 EC and 176 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87,
Arts 9(3) and 11(1) and (2)) (see paras 30-33, 38-40)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Gόrażdże Cement S.A. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
#### In the Matter of David E. Hampton.

— Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner as an attorney and counselor at law. Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00500

- CR

Joe Ernest Robinson v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 19

- 1

- 10288

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 7, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL 
                              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL 
                              STATEMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO 
                              REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K 
                              FOR YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1995 AND IS 
                              QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                              SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
<CASH>                         72179
<SECURITIES>                 1427186
<RECEIVABLES>                  95631
<ALLOWANCES>                    5643
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             1717439
<PP&E>                        132366
<DEPRECIATION>                 84028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               2159010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        188,969
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                         245
<OTHER-SE>                   1781648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 2159010
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              454702
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 336123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                71759
<INCOME-TAX>                   18800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            37057
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   37057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0

</TABLE>
Tom Carlson Associate, Government Affalrs & Policy

m. 651.587.0730 A®®JANCED e. tcarlson@aee.net ENEi2GY ECONOMY 1101 14th St NW, Suite 1200

Washington, OC 20005 www.aee.net @aeenet

# a 

# m

the business voice of advanced energy

AEE Testimony for Hearing on EPA's Clean Power Plan July 30, 2014 Washington, DC 

### AEE is a national association of businesses making the energy we use secure, clean, and affordable. AEE also leads a State Coalition consisting of 15 partner organizations active in 23 states across the country and representing more than 1,000 companies and organizations. AEE strongly supports EPA's draft rule for reducing carbon emissions from electric power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act — the "Clean Power Plan." AEE also sees a number of ways this proposal could be improved. The final rule should build on this solid foundation by: 

### • strengthening the targets set for advanced energy technologies; 

### • allowing periodic review of targets to reflect technological progress; 

### • rewarding early use of these technologies; and 

### • recognizing the 40 technologies described in AEE's 

### Advanced Energy Technologies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction report as compliance mechanisms for states. 

### AEE believes that EPA's Clean Power Plan provides a historic opportunity to modernize our electric power system for the 21 st century. This rule will drive investment in an electric power system that is sorely in need of it. Many of the technologies that are already changing the U.S. electric power system also help to reduce carbon emissions. A recent AEE report, Advanced Energy Technologies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, details 40 separate technologies that provide these improvements. These technologies include energy efficiency, demand response, natural gas electricity generation, solar, wind, hydropower, nuclear, smart grid, and energy storage. AEE applauds EPA for referencing, by name, many of these advanced energy technologies in its proposal. We urge EPA to clarify the value of advanced energy technologies further by recognizing the 40 technologies described in the 

### Advanced Energy Technologies for Greenhouse 

### Gas Reduction report as compliance options for states. 

### Already, by including so many of these established and market-tested technologies as compliance options, EPA has made the targets it sets for states easy to achieve. 

### Nonetheless, advanced energy can contribute more to emissions reduction and electric system modernization than the draft rule anticipates. Specifically, the Clean Power

www.aee.net @aeenet Washington DC San Francisco eoston

### completed prior to 2020. This will encourage, rather than discourage, early action

toward state targets and stimulate investment. Finally, EPA should also provide for periodic updates of the standard in order to reflect the progress that is already taking place in emission-reducing technologies — and will only accelerate in response to the EPA rule. Thank you for giving AEE the opportunity to provide input on this vitally important rule.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27415]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
137 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-105, CP2024-109.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-27415 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Holbrook v. Holbrook

24028

02/27/2003

Affirmed
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael W. English,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, of Zix Corporation;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Intentionally omitted.*
|-- | -----------------------



|4. | Intentionally omitted.*
|-- | -----------------------



|5. | Intentionally omitted.*
|-- | -----------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael W. English                                                                
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Michael W. English                                                                    
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



|* | Included in Exhibit 31.2 to the 2014 Annual Report filed by Zix Corporation on March 11, 2015.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificationof the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350**

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nicholas Burakow,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| March 30, 2007 |   | /s/ NICHOLAS  BURAKOW   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|           |   | Nicholas Burakow,       |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NO. 07-02-0211-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 28, 2002

______________________________

EX PARTE ROBERT RORY HOHN

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 87,717-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

__________________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Relator Robert Rory Hohn filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s

order of dismissal dated April 24, 2002. However, he has now filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal, which he has personally signed.

Because the motion to dismiss meets the requirements of Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.1(a), it must be and hereby is granted. Having dismissed the appeal at
2

relator’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                PROGRAM

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will be a cloture 
vote at 5:30 p.m. on Monday on the Bacharach nomination. On Monday 
evening, we expect to begin consideration of the cybersecurity bill. We 
will work on an agreement on amendments to the bill.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4263 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4263

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company 
               capital formation, 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 ``Regulation A+ Improvement Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. JOBS ACT-RELATED EXEMPTION.

    Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77c(b)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``$50,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$75,000,000, adjusted for inflation by the 
        Commission every 2 years to the nearest $10,000 to reflect the 
        change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
        published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics''; and
            (2) in paragraph (5)--
                    (A) by striking ``such amount as'' and inserting: 
                ``such amount, in addition to the adjustment for 
                inflation provided for under such paragraph (2)(A), 
                as''; and
                    (B) by striking ``such amount, it'' and inserting 
                ``such amount, in addition to the adjustment for 
                inflation provided for under such paragraph (2)(A), 
                it''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 15, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4263

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company 
               capital formation, and for other purposes.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 3, 2021

b0726

Order 

Clerk

August 3, 2021

162571

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 162571

COA: 354656

Ionia CC: 2017-017272-FH

ADE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2020 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed 

to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).