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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3621 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3621

 To provide for access to health insurance coverage of life-sustaining 
               treatments furnished by certain providers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 2013

  Mr. Duffy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for access to health insurance coverage of life-sustaining 
               treatments furnished by certain providers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROVIDING FOR ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OF LIFE-
              SUSTAINING TREATMENTS FURNISHED BY CERTAIN PROVIDERS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the 
case of an individual who resides in a State and who as of December 31 
of a year had in effect health insurance coverage that provided 
benefits for a life-sustaining treatment, with respect to a health 
condition of such individual, furnished by a provider that before such 
date furnished one or more services to such individual related to such 
condition, if--
            (1) such coverage for such individual is not continued for 
        the plan year beginning after such date; and
            (2) there is no health insurance coverage offered in such 
        State that provides for coverage of such life-saving treatment 
        by such provider;
the individual may enroll in health insurance coverage offered in any 
other State, which provides for coverage of such operation by such 
provider, as if such individual were a resident of such other State.
    (b) Life-Sustaining Treatment Defined.--For purposes of subsection 
(a), the term ``life-sustaining treatment'' means, with respect to an 
individual, any medical device or procedure, including a drug, 
ventilator, surgery, therapy, or artificially provided fluids and 
nutrients, that, as certified by the health care provider of such 
individual, is required to increase life expectancy of such individual 
by restoring or taking over a vital bodily function.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 2178

SYRECEA PARKER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
PREMISE HEALTH EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS , LLC , Defendant

- Appellee , and
PREMISE HEALTH HOLDING CORPORATION; PREMISE HEALTH; HANNAH ANDERSON, in her Individual and Official Capacities; MINDY TRANTHAM, in her Individual and Official Capacities; PRISCILLA DAVIS, in her Individual and Official Capacities , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 02740

- MGL )

Submitted : April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Syrecea Parker , Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Gilley, FORD & HARRISON LLP , Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Syrecea Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and granting summary judgment to Premise Health Employer Solutions, LLC, in Parker’s employment discrimination action . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Parker v. Premise Health Emp

. Sol s

. , LLC , No. 3:18

- cv - 02740

- MGL (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2020)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-136-B(04)

§

ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the one-count 

superseding Information filed June 27, 2022. After cautioning and examining ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary 

and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such 

offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that ALEXIS NICOLE PACHECO be adjudged 

guilty of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii), and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district 

judge, 

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

Date: August 9, 2022 

 

______________________________________ 

REBECCA RUTHERFORD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B).

Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 127 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 247
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED              FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 31, 2004                  DECEMBER 26, 2003               DECEMBER 27, 2002
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 63,795           $ 74,447        $ 63,795           $ 74,430         $ 63,795            $ 74,529
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    61,880             63,795          61,880             63,795           61,880              63,795
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 61,880           $ 63,795        $ 61,880           $ 63,795         $ 61,880            $ 63,795
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
Certificate of Interested Parties 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS 

Plaintiff,

§ 

§ 

§

§

§

§

§ Case No. 4:22-CV-00343

V.

§

§

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE 

HEDRICK, ERIK HARRIS

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

COMES NOW, Counter Defendant, Robert (Bob) Ross, and hereby certifies that the 

following persons or entities have a financial interest in the outcome of this allegation are as 

follows pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1:

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant: Robert (Bob) Ross

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs: Association of Professional Flight Attendants

Julie Hedrick at her place of employment APFA Headquarters 

Erik Harris at his place of employment APFA Headquarters 

McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. d/b/a Diversified 

Credit Systems

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 20 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 150
Certificate of Interested Parties 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips, Esq. 

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Heather Abreu, Esq. 

Texas Bar No. 24122577

Phone: (972) 327-5800

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300

Plano, Texas 75024

Fax: (940) 400-0089

For Service of Filings:

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 20 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 151
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REFERRING MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’

Notice to Take Deposition and Motion for Temporary Protective Order

(doc. 121). After review, the Court concludes that the parties should

be given a final opportunity to resolve this discovery dispute without

Court intervention.

In this regard, the parties are again directed to the per-curiam

opinion in Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Assoc.,

121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988). That opinion sets forth standards

of conduct for counsel (and pro se parties) to follow throughout

litigation. Particularly relevant here are the standards for conduct

during discovery. "[Parties] should make reasonable efforts to

conduct all discovery by agreement." Id. at 293. The Court cautions

the parties that it does not take discovery disputes lightly, and,

if a final resolution by the Court is necessary, sanctions will be

imposed upon any party conducting or opposing discovery unreasonably,

in bad faith, or otherwise not in compliance with the rules or Dondi.

Therefore, the parties shall confer and make a good-faith effort

to resolve this discovery dispute between themselves. If the parties

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 129 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2634
are able to completely resolve this discovery dispute, Plaintiff shall

notify the Court in writing as soon as possible, but not later than

November 3, 2023, that the motion should be rendered moot.

 If the parties are able to resolve part, but not all of their

discovery dispute, Plaintiff must file an amended motion as to the

remaining disputed matters only no later than November 3.

Should the parties be able to resolve none or only a part of

their discovery dispute, Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s

initial or amended motion no later than November 30, 2023. Any reply

to Defendants’ response must be filed in accordance with Rule 7.1(f)

of the local civil rules of this Court.

Furthermore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion and

any amended motions filed in accordance with this order should be

and are hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey

L. Cureton for determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). All

papers filed hereafter regarding this motion or any amendment thereto

shall include the following notation under the case-number: “(Relates

to Motion Referred to Magistrate Judge Cureton).”1 

SIGNED September 29, 2023.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1The judge’s copy of all documents related to this motion should be mailed

to the Honorable Jeffrey L. Cureton, Eldon B. Mahon United States Courthouse, 501

West 10th Street, Room 520, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

2

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 129 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2635
#### LEMUEL v. STATE.

No. 25175.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $400.

The city marshal of the city of Lorenzo apprehended appellant in front of his (appellant’s) house in said city after he handed a Mr. Bird a paper sack containing three cans of beer. The marshal testified that immediately after he took the beer from Bird he turned to appellant and demanded the money which he had seen Bird give him upon receiving the beer. Whereupon, the appellant handed the officer $2.00.

Appellant and Bird testified that the beer belonged to Bird and that appellant had been cooling it for him. Appellant denied that Bird had given him the money, and stated that he merely gave the officer what money he had in his pocket in re-^ sponse to the demand.

Appellant comes to this court with five bills of exception, each of which complain of the refusal of the trial court to give an identical special charge containing nine numbered paragraphs. Appellant prefaces each bill of exception with a statement as to the purpose of the bill. Nowhere in the transcript do we find any objections or exceptions to the court’s . charge. In a misdemeanor case it is incumbent upon appellant to come before this court with both objections and exceptions to the charge and a requested charge or charges. Cases cited under Notes 105 and 110 of art. 666, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

: , ’It. will be noted that appellant’s affirmative defense was submitted by the court when he granted appellant’s specially requested charge No. 2.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Objections addressed to the court’s charge which were not in the record when the original opinion herein was delivered are now before us.

The instrument filed does not, however, .show that such objections were called to *983the court’s attention or that the court ruled upon the objections to the charge.

In the absence of a showing in the record over the signature of the judge that the objections were timely presented and overruled and that appellant excepted to such ruling, we are unable to agree that appellant “excepted” to the charge given in addition to. requesting special charges.

Being a misdemeanor case, it was incumbent upon appellant to reserve timely exceptions to the charge given as well as to request the giving of a properly prepared charge on the subject. See Crispi v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 621, 237 S.W. 263; 4 Tex.Jur. 75, Sec. 47.

The case having been properly disposed of on original submission, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Kentucky Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Kentucky Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 4      | 5      | 5      | 4      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 2     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | NA     | 2      | NA     | 2     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 207 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 207

     Providing for placement of a statue honoring African American 
     recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

 Mr. Conyers introduced the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Providing for placement of a statue honoring African American 
     recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Capitol.

Whereas 79 African Americans have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor 
        for service in the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, the 
        Korean conflict, and the Vietnam conflict;
Whereas the Congressional Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest award for 
        bravery in military service;
Whereas African American recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor have 
        gone virtually unrecognized throughout history, while serving in the 
        highest tradition of the United States military;
Whereas a statue has been constructed, with private funds, to celebrate the 
        accomplishments of these great American heroes, and to recognize the 
        great sacrifice and outstanding performance of the African Americans who 
        boldly served this country, and were justly awarded the Congressional 
        Medal of Honor;
Whereas this memorial will afford Americans of all descents an opportunity to 
        understand the tremendous contributions these African American heroes 
        made to their Nation and people; and
Whereas the Capitol is a suitable and appropriate location for this memorial to 
        be displayed because thousands of people visit the Capitol each year: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. ACCEPTANCE AND PLACEMENT OF STATUE.

    The Architect of the Capitol shall accept the statue described in 
section 3, and shall place the statue in the Capitol, in an appropriate 
area that is open to the public.

SEC. 2. SCHEDULE FOR PLACEMENT OF STATUE.

    The statue shall be placed in the Capitol not later than 6 months 
after the artist creating the statue notifies the Architect of the 
Capitol, in writing, that the statue is complete.

SEC. 3. DESCRIPTION OF STATUE.

    The statue referred to in sections 1 and 2 is the statue that 
honors African American recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 
and is referred to in a letter of the Architect of the Capitol dated 
March 18, 1993, discussing the placement of monuments in the Capitol 
and responding to a letter of March 1, 1993.
```