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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4771 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4771

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding 
           company policy statement, 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 ``Small Bank Holding Company Relief 
Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. CHANGES REQUIRED TO SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY POLICY STATEMENT 
              ON ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND MANAGERIAL FACTORS.

    (a) In General.--Before the end of the 6-month period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System shall revise the Small Bank Holding Company 
Policy Statement on Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors (12 
CFR part 225--appendix C) to raise the consolidated asset threshold 
under such policy statement from $1,000,000,000 (as adjusted by Public 
Law 113-250) to $3,000,000,000.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section 171(b)(5) of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 
U.S.C. 5371(b)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(C) any bank holding company or savings and loan 
                holding company that is subject to the application of 
                the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement on 
                Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors of the 
                Board of Governors (12 CFR part 225--appendix C).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 8, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### John E. BURKE, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13079.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

*Oct.*18, 1961.

*839John E. Burke, pro se.

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

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus brought by John E. Burke, wherein he alleges he is illegally restrained of his liberty by the warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, by virtue of a judgment and sentence of the District Court of Haskell County, Oklahoma, of twenty-five years upon his conviction by a jury on a charge of robbery in the first degree. He alleges the judgment and sentence to be void for identically the same reasons previously presented to this court on petitions for writ of habeas corpus. In re Burke, Okl.Cr., 324 P.2d 285; Application of John E. Burke for writ of habeas corpus, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 176.

In Ex parte Mayfield, Okl.Cr., 322 P.2d 1073, 1074, it was held:

> “This court is consistent in the- rule that it will not entertain subsequent writs upon the same grounds and facts as related in prior application."

See Ex parte Davis, 74 Okl.Cr. 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Peaker, 87 Okl.Cr. 139, 194 P.2d 893.

As above stated, the contentions herein presented being the same as this same petitioner has twice previously presented for our determination, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the 
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
```
or Retained

Investment

Supported

*Includes those projects funded from FY2009-2016 and closed by the end of FY 2018
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForms S-8 (No. 333-42533, No. 333-86001, No. 333-62734 and No. 333-100011,pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Stock Option Plan, asamended and restated, and the 2002 Stock Option Plan), and Forms S-3 (No. 333-33710,No. 333-51250, No. 333-53538 and No. 333-112513) of TitanPharmaceuticals, Inc. of our reports dated February 15, 2005,relating to the consolidated financial statements of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., includedin this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,2004.
| /s/ ODENBERG ULLAKKO MURANISHI & CO.  LLP |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                               |   |   |
| San Francisco, California                          |   |   |
| April 14, 2005                                |   |   |

 

----
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00007

- CR

AUGUSTINE NAVARRO, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 427th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court No. D

- 1

- DC

- 17

- 206016

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Augustine Navarro entered an open plea of guilty to, and was convicted of, unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon. After a bench trial on punishment, Navarro was sentenced to
ten years’ imprisonment. He appeals. 1
In companion cause number 06

- 19

- 0 0006

- CR, Navarro also appeals his conviction for
aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Navarro has filed a single brief in which he raises

issues common to both of his appeals. Navarro argues that his sentence was disproportionate to

his crime and con stituted an abuse of discretion because it was not supported by legally sufficient

evidence.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Navarro’s appeal in cause

number 06

- 19

- 00006

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that Navarro failed
to preserve his disproportionate sentence claim in this cause and that, because his sentence was
within the range of punishme nt , he is not entitled to a sufficiency review of his sentence.

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001. In this transfer case, we will apply the law of the transferor court, the Third Court of Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.3 We affirm the trial court’s judgmen t.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 3, 2019 Date Decided: September 11 , 2019

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1475-E1476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF PETTY OFFICER 3RD CLASS CLAYTON R. BEAUCHAMP

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KAY GRANGER

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Petty 
Officer 3rd Class Clayton R. Beauchamp who was killed on August 7, 2012 
in Helmand Province, Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Petty Officer Beauchamp was serving with the 1st Battalion, 
1st Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 6, based at Camp Pendleton, 
California.
  Petty Officer Beauchamp was from Weatherford, TX. He graduated from 
Weatherford High School in 2009 and enlisted in the Navy that July. 
Petty Officer Beauchamp is one of three siblings who have all chosen to 
serve in the United States Navy. His brother, Christopher Beauchamp, is 
a six-year Navy corpsman serving his third tour overseas, and his 
younger sister, Cheyenne Beauchamp, is in the Navy Security Forces, 
stationed in Virginia. According to friends, Clay always knew he wanted 
to serve after high school, and he signed up at the first possible 
opportunity on his 17th birthday, Jan. 16, 2008, more than a year 
before graduation.
  Petty Officer Beauchamp, a medical corpsman, had earned a Combat 
Action Ribbon, Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Navy Good Conduct 
Medal, Navy Expert ribbons in rifle and pistol and the Fleet Marine 
Force Enlisted Warfare Specialist device, and was posthumously awarded 
the Purple Heart.
  Petty Officer 3rd Class Clayton R. Beauchamp was a true patriot and 
made the

[[Page E1476]]

ultimate sacrifice defending his country. I wish to extend my 
condolences to Petty Officer Beauchamp's parents, Jack and Diana, and 
his sister Cheyenne and brothers Christopher, Brian and Timothy, and 
hope that they continue to find solace in his lasting impact on this 
grateful nation, his fellow soldiers, and our community.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
AGE Logic, Inc.
FTP Software, Inc.
Maximum Information, Inc.
NetManage (Barbados) Ltd.
NetManage Benelux bvba (Belgium)
NetManage Japan K.K. (Japan)
NetManage, Ltd. (Haifa, Israel)
NetManage S.A. (France)
NetManage Software GmbH (Germany)
NetManage Italia srl (Italy)
NetManage UK Ltd. (England)
NetSoft
Network International Ltd. (England)
Network Software Associates, Inc.
NY NetManage (Yerushalayim), Ltd. (Jerusalem, Israel)
Relay Technology, Inc.
Syzygy Communications, Inc.
U.S. Computer Acquisition Corporation
#### STATE v. BEAMAN.

No. A-11966.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 7, 1954.

Granville Scanland, County Atty. of Oklahoma County, Hubert Gibson, Asst. County Atty. of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

George Hill, McAlester, Frank Grayson, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JONES, Judge.

Jacquelyn Kay Beaman was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County with the crime of murder of her husband, Delbert Beaman. At the trial of the case the defendant was acquitted.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the County Attorney requested the court to instruct the jury on manslaughter in the first degree. Counsel for the defendant contended that under the evidence the crime would be murder or nothing. After hearing argument on the requested instruction of the County Attorney, the court refused to submit the included offense of manslaughter in the first degree to the jury. After the verdict of not guilty was returned, the County Attorney gave notice of his intention to appeal on a reserved question of law as to whether the trial court erred in failing and refusing to submit the issue of manslaughter in the first *degree to*the *jury.*

In due time the appeal was filed in the Criminal Court of Appeals. Thereafter the case was assigned for oral argument but no appearance was made on behalf of the State and no brief has been filed in support of the appeal. Under such circumstances we treat the appeal as having been abandoned.

In view of the fact that the county went to considerable expense in preparing a record for the appeal, we feel impelled *to*refer to the recent case of Igo v. State, Okl.Cr., 267 P.2d 1082, 1085, for a discus*491sion of the question raised by this appeal, It was there held :

> “Where a defendant is charged with the crime of murder, it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the law of manslaughter in the first or second degree, if there is any evidence that the alleged crime might have been committed under circumstances that would reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter, and this is true whether the evidence comes from witnesses produced by the State or by the accused, or by both.”

Since the accused was found not guilty and has been discharged, the appeal by the State would not have any effect upon her acquittal. It would merely settle the point of law that was raised. For that reason we feel that the above reference to the case of Igo v. State, which is a reiteration of established law in this state, answers the question presented by this appeal. We feel this is a sufficient statement in the absence of any briefs which would call for a more extended discussion of the question involved.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
( 

I I 

\._ 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

lfyuu make changes tu tile values in tile tablt! below. you must ensure thr! rotals update accordingly. fl 

rhr?y do not. click (or Tah) into and then out q(the changed cl!l!. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) {include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, {@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Section 41 Hole 

installation and 24.0 $664 ' 3 '-..~ I 

Bonded Plug, 

Change 

Section 43 Bonded 26.0 $948 ·. I 3 

Plug, Change 

Section 46 Bonded 26.0 $1,236 3 

Plug, Change 

Section 4 7 Bonded 24.0 $618 3 ' Plug, Change ......-----~ 

v -,k7l' / ? JJ// \ 

( /UV ) "- -/7 0\:.::> I I 

- ·· . . , ; ' ' 

l 

' I ·' 

' l ' ' 

.· ,, ' . ' 

I ,•if c ·' ., J 

'. '. ( ; f· 

> \ 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $35,898 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: Q 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close- replacement) up) 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

~ 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?~ 

*Explanation: n/a 

DOT Regulatory Policies and P•·ocedures: 

Is the AD significant? • " 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES* 0 NO [gj 

YES* 0 NO lZJ 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ YES 0 NO lZJ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* 0 NO lZJ 

*Explanation:
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Zappala, Jr., Doing Business as Military Packard Enterprises, Appellant, v Richard Hann, as Assessor of the Town of Niagara, et al., Respondents, and Niagara-Wheatfield School District, IntervenorRespondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial in these tax certiorari proceedings on the ground of newly discovered evidence (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Petitioner challenged the tax assessments on the subject property for the tax years 1983-1987 *(see,*RPTL art 7). A trial was conducted before a Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) in April, 1988, and the JHO’s decision, findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued in October, 1989. Supreme Court entered its order and judgment confirming the JHO’s decision that determined the fair market value of the property to be $1,942,300. Petitioner moved for a new trial, asserting that in July, 1990, he sold the subject property for $1,480,000. He argues that the postjudgment sale is newly discovered evidence entitling him to the requested relief within the meaning of CPLR 5015. Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s contention and denied his motion for a new trial. We affirm. The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of Supreme Court and that court’s determination should not be disturbed except in case of an abuse of discretion *(see, Suffolk Cement Prods. v State of New York,*54 AD2d 804, 804-805). We conclude that, on the record of the hearing, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion *(see, Matter of Commercial Structures v City of Syracuse,*107 AD2d 1054). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, *597Koshian, J. — New Trial.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         January 5, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 27, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 161 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-149, CP2024-155.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-29010 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Don’t Pack A Pest Program

Last Modified: 

Print

The Don’t Pack a Pest (DPAP) traveler education and outreach program, is an

international, multi-agency initiative designed to raise public awareness about the

risks associated with travelers unintentionally transporting pests and diseases, by

carrying agricultural and food items in their luggage when they travel.

Travel between the Caribbean and the United States is expected to rise sharply

when impacts from COVID-19 decrease. Pre-Pandemic, approximately 12.5 million

visitors traveled between the U.S. and the Caribbean annually.As the volume of

travel between the United States and the Caribbean – and from one Caribbean

country to another – increases, so does the possibility that an unsuspecting traveler

could unknowingly bring a serious threat to agriculture and natural resources.

In 2014, the DPAP program was presented to the Caribbean Plant Health Directors,

at their annual meeting.  As a result, the membership voted unanimously to

implement the DPAP program in each of the 32 member countries. Since then, APHIS

has expanded the DPAP program in the Greater Caribbean Region, which now has 17

partner countries representing 10 countries with active DPAP programs, 7 countries

in various stages of program implementation, and DPAP program signage in 4 U.S.

Customs and Border Protection Passenger Pre-Clearance Areas (Oranjestad, Aruba;

Freeport and Nassau, The Bahamas; and Hamilton, Bermuda.
There are approximately 600 Don’t Pack a Pest signs in 42 Greater Caribbean Region

ports of entry. This rivals the number of signs in the Continental United States where

they reach almost 85% of international travelers.
Before your next international trip, whether it’s to the Greater Caribbean Region, or

not, get the latest Don’t Pack a Pest program information at

https://www.dontpackapest.com/ where you can access resources like “Can I Bring

It?”, information on Declarations, Travel Links, and more!

For more information on the Don’t Pack a Pest program, please contact GCSI

Director, Dennis Martin at Dennis.W.Martin@usda.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  293,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,100
<INVENTORY>                                    292,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               664,400
<PP&E>                                         395,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 113,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,112,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          408,600
<BONDS>                                        125,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200  
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,112,600
<SALES>                                      1,962,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,962,900
<CGS>                                        1,513,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,513,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               435,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>