alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 146 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 146

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the use of the Capitol building and grounds for events to 
 commemorate the 200th anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone of 
                              the Capitol.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 146

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

    The Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Capitol 
(hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Commission'') may 
use the Capitol building and grounds on October 23, 1993, or on such 
other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, for events 
to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone 
of the Capitol.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    The events referred to in section 1 shall be free of admission 
charge to the public and arranged under conditions to be prescribed by 
the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--Subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, the Commission is authorized to erect upon 
the Capitol grounds such stages, sound amplification devices, and other 
related structures and equipment as may be required for the events 
referred to in section 1.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such additional 
arrangements, including the use of voluntary and uncompensated staff 
and services, as may be required to carry out the events referred to in 
section 1.
    (c) Representations.--The Architect of the Capitol shall take such 
actions as may be necessary to ensure that sponsors of the events 
referred to in section 1 do not make representations that such 
sponsorship in any way constitutes an endorsement by the Federal 
Government.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 18, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### Cicero F. GREEN, Appellant v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 25850.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 23, *1952.*

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The offence is misdemeanor theft; the punishment 6 months in jail and a fine of $300.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form executed by appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

Appellant’s request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Case 1:22-cr-00025-P-BU     Document 28     Filed 07/07/22      Page 1 of 2     PageID 57

Case 1:22-cr-00025-P-BU     Document 28     Filed 07/07/22      Page 2 of 2     PageID 58
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-66-000]

Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective November 1, 2000.

Koch states that the purpose of this filing is to make the necessary changes in Koch's tariff to reflect the implementation of Internet communication.

Koch states that copies of this filing have been served upon Koch's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 8888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28641  Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60683

Summary Calendar

KARSON C. KAEBEL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

 Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

TC No. 916-18

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karson Kaebel appeals an order of the Tax Court dismissing for lack of 

jurisdiction his petition for review regarding his unpaid tax liabilities. Kaebel 

argues that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is attempting to levy against 

him without issuing the required notice. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330.

 

* 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

May 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60683 Document: 00514976590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2019
No. 18-60683

2

The jurisdiction of the Tax Court is a question of law that we review de 

novo. Terrell v. Comm’r, 625 F.3d 254, 259 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Ferguson v. 

Comm’r, 568 F.3d 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2009)). The Tax Court has jurisdiction 

over a petition only if the taxpayer files the petition within 90 days after the 

notice of deficiency is mailed. 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a); Ward v. Comm’r, 907 F.2d 

517, 521 (5th Cir. 1990). “[W]hether the IRS properly sent notice to the 

taxpayer[] . . . thereby starting the ninety-day response period, is a question of 

fact that we review for clear error.” Terrell, 625 F.3d at 259 (citing Ward, 907 

F.2d at 521). The Tax Code does not require actual receipt of the notice of 

deficiency, rather the notice “shall be sufficient” if mailed to the taxpayer’s last 

known address. 26 U.S.C. § 6212(b)(1); Jones v. United States, 889 F.2d 1448, 

1450 (5th Cir. 1989).

Kaebel’s petition to the Tax Court claimed that he never received a notice 

of deficiency for the years 2005–2010. The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction, providing copies of the notices of deficiency and United States 

Postal Forms 3877 showing that the notices were sent by certified mail to 

Kaebel’s last known address. The record reflects that all six of the contested 

notices were mailed from December 13, 2010 to June 3, 2013. Accordingly, the 

90-day deadline to file a petition expired, at the latest, on September 3, 2013. 

Kaebel did not file his petition until January 17, 2018. We find no clear error 

in the Tax Court’s determination that the notices of deficiency were properly 

mailed and that Kaebel’s petition was filed long after the deadline expired. See, 

e.g., Haddix v. Comm’r, 665 F. App’x 378, 381-82 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[Taxpayers],

as the ones invoking the Tax Court’s jurisdiction, [have] the burden of proving 

the Tax Court’s jurisdictional prerequisites by a preponderance of the 

evidence[.]”). AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-60683 Document: 00514976590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2019
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November

9 , 2012.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00993

- CV

IN RE JOSEPH R. WILL IE, II , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Probate Court No. 1 Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 401,492



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On October 29, 2012 , relator Joseph R. Willie, II filed a petitio n for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask s this c ourt to compel the Honorable Loyd Wright , presiding judge
of the Probate Court No

. 1 of Harris C ounty , to vacate his or der dated March 2, 2011, holding relator in contempt and imposing sanctions. R elator also filed an emergency motion to stay a contempt hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012, in the court below.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. On October 31, 2012, this court denied emergency relief , and

we denied relator’s motion to reconsider our ruling on November 1 , 2012.2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004).

Relator ha s not established his en titlement to extraordinary relief from a writ of
mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justice s Brown and Busby.
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 340 Filed 07/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 773
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 340 Filed 07/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 774
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MATTHEW ANTHONY GERACI

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellant,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

,

Defendant Below,

Appellee

. §

§

§ No. 3 64, 2021

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. 21C

- 07

- 151 ( N )

§

§

§

§

Submitted: May 13, 2022

Decided: June 22 , 2022

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices.

ORDE R

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal

, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior

Court’s order, dated October 29, 2021 dismissing the complaint and the Superior

Court’s order, dated November 9, 2021, denying the motion for reargument

.

NOW, T HERE FORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11


                          RENAISSANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.


                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

           (Unaudited - Amount in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                  March 28, 1997  March 29, 1996
                                                  --------------  --------------
<S>                                               <C>             <C>
Weighted average number of common and common
equivalent shares outstanding:
   Common stock................................            9,366           7,299
   Stock Options (treasury stock method).......              345             600
                                                  --------------  --------------
     Total.....................................            9,711           7,899
                                                  ==============  ==============
Net income per common share....................           $  .23          $  .10
                                                  ==============  ==============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



BORDERS
GROUP, INC.

STATEMENT
OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
BORDERS GROUP, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward W. Wilhelm,
certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 24, 2004, of Borders Group, Inc. fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Borders Group, Inc.

Date: November 24, 2004

/s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM
-----------------------------------------------
Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Borders Group,
Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79057-79058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8575]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Gauguin: Metamorphoses''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition, ``Gauguin: Metamorphoses,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about March 8, 2014, until 
on or about June 8, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of

[[Page 79058]]

the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-
6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 17, 2013.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-31091 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 228 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 228

   Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to violence against 
                               truckers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1994

 Mr. Barca of Wisconsin submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to violence against 
                               truckers.

Whereas there are 8,000,000 workers in the trucking industry in the United 
        States, some working for large carriers and some for small carriers, 
        some for private carriers and some owner operators, all assisting the 
        free flow commerce by transporting all types of commodities that enter, 
        leave, or move within this country;
Whereas unemployment, crime, and drug use have contributed to an increase of 
        violence against commercial truckers, an increase that has gone 
        unrecognized by the public at large;
Whereas few State or local authorities report violent crimes against truckers as 
        such to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, statistics do not reflect 
        this fast-growing and increasingly violent segment of crime;
Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated 282 truck hijackings 
        involving crimes of violence in 1993, not including attempted crimes and 
        crimes addressed by State, county, and local authorities;
Whereas the Federal Government in large measure finances the highway system the 
        trucking industry uses, collecting large sums in taxes from the 
        industry, and licenses and regulates the industry and its drivers, 
        entailing a concomitant responsibility to protect them against crime; 
        and
Whereas Federal law provides protections to truckers in among others, sections 
        33 and 1951 of title 18, United States Code, but currently Federal 
        prosecutions are not undertaken unless certain monetary thresholds of 
        loss are met: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) when there is Federal jurisdiction, Federal authorities 
        should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law murders, 
        rapes, burglaries, kidnapings and assaults committed against 
        commercial truckers; and
            (2) appropriate Federal agencies should acknowledge this 
        problem and place a priority on evaluation how best to prevent 
        these crimes and apprehend those involved, and continue to 
        coordinate their activities with multi-jurisdictional 
        authorities to combat violent crimes committed against 
        truckers.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

ADULT SERVICES UNLIMITED, INC
ALACHUA COUNTY HEALTH CARE, LLC
ALPINE HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC
ARBORS AT BAYONET POINT, LLC
ARBORS AT TAMPA, LLC

ARBORS AT TOLEDO, INC
ARBORS EAST, INC
BLANCHESTER CARE, LLC
CANTON CARE, LLC
CITRUS COUNTY HEALTH CARE, LLC

COLONIAL CARE, LLC
COLUMBUS HEALTH CARE, LLC
CONCORDIA MANOR, LLC
CONVEST-CARE, INC
COVENTRY CARE HOLDINGS, INC

COVENTRY CARE
CSI SOFTWARE, INC
DAYTON CARE, LLC
DELAWARE CARE, LLC
EDGEWOOD CARE, LP

EDGEWOOD NURSING CENTER, INC
ELDERCREST CARE, LP
ELDER CREST, INC.
EXTENDICARE GREAT TRAIL, INC
EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITY HOLDINGS, INC

EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITIES, INC
EXTENDICARE HEALTH NETWORK, INC
EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC
EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC.
EXTENDICARE HOMES OF WISCONSIN, LLC

EXTENDICARE OF INDIANA, INC.
FAIRLAWN CARE, LLC
FIR LANE TERRACE CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC
FIRST COAST HEALTH & REHAB CENTER, LLC
GALLIPOLIS CARE, LLC

GREENBRIAR CARE, LLC
GREENBROOK CARE, LLC
HAVEN CARE, LP
HAVEN CREST, INC
HEALTH POCONOS, INC


<PAGE>   2

HERITAGE CARE, LLC
HILLIARD CARE, LLC
INDIANA HEALTH & REHAB. CENTERS PARTNERSHIP
JACKSON HEIGHTS REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC
JACKSONVILLE CARE, LLC

KAUFMAN STREET, WV, LLC
KISSIMMEE CARE, LLC
LADY LAKE CARE, LLC
LONDON CARE, LLC
MARIETTA CARE, LLC

MARSHALL PROPERTIES, INC
MEADOW CARE, LP
MEADOW CREST, INC
NEW CASTLE CARE, LLC
NEW HORIZON CARE, LLC

NORTHERN HEALTH FACILITIES, INC.
NORTH REHABILITATION CARE, LLC
OAK HILL CARE, LP
OAK HILL HOME OF REST & CARE, INC
THE OAKS RESIDENTIAL & REHAB CENTER, LLC

ORANGE PARK CARE, LLC
PALM COURT CARE, LLC
PORT CHARLOTTE CARE, LLC
THE PROGRESSIVE STEP CORPORATION
RICHEY MANOR, LLC

ROCKLEDGE CARE, LLC
SAFETY HARBOR CARE, LLC
SARASOTA CARE, LLC
SEMINOLE CARE, LLC
STONEBRIDGE CARE, LP

SOUTH HERITAGE HEALTH & REHAB CENTER, LLC
TOLEDO CARE, LLC
TREASURE ISLE CARE CENTER, LLC
UNION PRESCRIPTION CENTERS OF MICHIGAN
UNITED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.

WATERVILLE CARE, LLC
WEST JEFFERSON CARE, LLC
WINTER HAVEN CARE, LLC
WINTER HAVEN HEALTH & REHAB CENTER, LLC
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CE SAR P ER EZ - HERNAN DEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70432 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 323- 561 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y19, 2010 ** B ef ore: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , and W A R D L A W , C i rc ui tJudg es C es arP er ez -H ernand ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We r e v i e w d e n o v o q u e s t i o n s o f l aw, 

# FI LED AU G 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 70432 2 A vi la-Sa nchez v . Mukasey , 509 F . 3d 1037, 1039- 40 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd w e gr a nt th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w a n dr e m a n df

o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . T he a ge nc yc onc l ude d tha tP e r e z - H e rnande z w a s i ne l i gi bl e f orc anc e l l a t i on of re m ov albecause hi s c on vi ct i on un der C al . P enalC od e § 27 3a(b) w as c a t e g o r i c a l l ya“ c r i me o f c h i l dab u s e ” w i th i n th e me an i n g o f 8 U . S. C. § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( E ) ( i ) . W e s ubs e que nt l yhe l d tha tac onvi c t i on unde rs e c t i on 273a ( b) is n o t c a te g o r ic a llyac r im e o f c h ildab u s e . Frego zo v. H older , 576 F . 3d 1030, 1034 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e there fore re m and for appl i cat i on of the m od i fi ed c a t e gor i c a l a na l y s i s i n l i ghtof the de f i ni t i on of “ c hi l d abus e ” s e tf

orth i n M at te rof V ela zq u ez-H

errera , 2 4 I . & N . D e c . 5 0 3 ( B I A 2 0 0 8 ) . Se e i d. a t 1 0 4 0 . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
Case 2:22-cv-00070-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 24