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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 159 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 159

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 19 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   To designate the month of November in 1993 and 1994 as ``National 
                            Hospice Month''.

Whereas hospice care has been demonstrated to be a humanitarian way for 
        terminally ill patients to approach the end of their lives in comfort 
        with appropriate, competent, and compassionate care in an environment of 
        personal individuality and dignity;
Whereas hospice advocates care for the patient and family by attending to their 
        physical, emotional, and spiritual needs and specifically, the pain and 
        grief they experience;
Whereas hospice care is provided by an interdisciplinary team of physicians, 
        nurses, social workers, pharmacists, psychological and spiritual 
        counselors, and community volunteers trained in the hospice concept of 
        care;
Whereas hospice has become a full partner in the Nation's health care system;
Whereas the enactment of a permanent medicare hospice benefit and an optional 
        medicaid hospice benefit makes it possible for many more Americans to 
        have the opportunity to elect to receive hospice care;
Whereas private insurance carriers and employers have recognized the value of 
        hospice care by the inclusion of hospice benefits in health care 
        coverage packages; and
Whereas there remains a great need to increase public awareness of the benefits 
        of hospice care: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the month of November in 
1993 and 1994 is designated as ``National Hospice Month''. The 
President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon all 
government agencies, the health care community, appropriate private 
organizations, and people of the United States to observe each of those 
months with appropriate forums, programs and activities designed to 
encourage national recognition of and support for hospice care as a 
humane response to the needs of the terminally ill and as a viable 
component of the health care system in this country.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Barrett E. Green, Vice President and Treasurer of Entergy New Orleans, LLC (the “Servicer”), certify that:





(a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Storm Recovery Property Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 24, 2023


Entergy New Orleans, LLC, as servicer


By :/s/ Barrett E. Green





Name:  Barrett E. Green


Title:  Vice President and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00049-Z-BR

§

RAMON GONZALEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

RAMON GONZALEZ (1), 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 2 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining RAMON GONZALEZ (1) 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 RAMON GONZALEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE 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 25, 2022

______________________________________

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 2:22-cr-00049-Z-BR Document 44 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89
Kin. oi-fi'Qt&fa'Cfl*

Ja\ty\C5 fau\ CC "Appc lUl XN TWC TaAS COuRT

VS. " ' :0Y

THC. 51ATC;iOrT£XA5 RS£@5^SB.S^PPULS RdJp^o^ ^OURT OFf}i«U^pp^Lg

OCT OS 2015

OF C0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL*

!)U5PtM5lOMRulcA. ' OCT 0S -** <iU

Abel Acosta, Cierk

PiUou^f IW^P)qfl(,r PrsOc Rcjpcdifullu M0\/C5 tt«J (LouA +ali/\a<4

5a5pQA5;oiA dt RuI<l3\ at" tl^6 Rul^ af Appd!^p^c£da^,W6^

&/^ <d6£S \ac\ U&VL dtC£55 [t> &topLj \MCxdAitAC . 31. Pc4iti£)M£/* d#0 iaJ- Ufii/t fuuJi fo pay a dcidtj 5£vVtCC and L--»eu/<d

flop U;»v\ 0*6im. adi/ficACiiAA U.\5 r^Ul uaOIu/ia U;i p<4tlv#n fo<*

,'CU LxJOuid
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28938]



[[Page 67732]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-260-005]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing changes to its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, in compliance with the Commission's 
Order on Compliance and Rehearing, and Referring Additional Issues for 
Hearing issued October 27, 2000, in the above-captioned docket (the 
October 27 Order):

Substitute First Revised Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1
Second Substitute Original Sheet No. 11D
Substitute Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 12
Original Sheet No. 12.01
Substitute Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 17
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 18
Original Sheet No. 19

    Texas Gas requests an effective date of November 1, 2000, for the 
proposed tariff sheets.
    Texas Gas further states that it has served copies of this filing 
upon the company's jurisdictional customers, interested state 
commission, and all parties appearing on the official restricted 
service list in Docket No. RP00-260.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.2111 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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 reviewed 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. 00-28938 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### McDANIEL v. STATE.

No. 26148.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of cattle theft, and was assessed a penalty of two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2076/2004

of 3 December 2004         

adapting for the first time Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to fertilisers (EDDHSA and triple superphosphate)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 relating to fertilisers (1), and in particular Articles 31 (1) and (3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 2004.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 304, 21.11.2003, p 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 885/2004 (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003 is amended as follows:

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ORDER

On February 15, 2022, Judge Self of the United States District Court for the Middle District 

of Georgia preliminarily enjoined Lloyd J. Austin, III, Frank Kendall, III, and Robert I. Miller

from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandates of the Department of Defense and the Air Force.

See Air Force Officer v. Austin, No. 5:22-cv-9, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2022 WL 468799 (M.D. Ga. 

Feb. 15, 2022). Other plaintiffs then joined the lawsuit and filed an amended class-action 

complaint. See 2d Am. Compl., id., ECF No. 84. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class “consisting 

of all members of the United States Air Force who (a) are subject to a mandate of the Department 

of Defense or Air Force to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a request for religious 

accommodation regarding such mandate based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have 

BRYAN P. SPENCE, TYLER W. STEF, 

RYAN CORCORAN, MITCHELL B. 

PIKE, STEVEN R. HAYNES, ANDREW 

GRIEB, DANIELLE A. RUNYAN,

CHRISTOPHER M. WU, and ALAN 

SOSEBEE, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official 

capacity as United States Secretary of 

Defense; THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; and 

FRANK KENDALL, in his official 

capacity as United States Secretary of the 

Air Force,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Case No. 4:22-cv-00453-O

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 24 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1639
received or will receive a final denial of such request from the Department of Defense or Air 

Force.” Pls.’ Mot. to Certify Class 1, id., ECF No. 88. Plaintiffs also moved for entry of a classwide preliminary injunction. Id. The class-certification motion is currently pending.

In light of the preliminary injunction and pending motions in the Middle District of Georgia

case, the Court ORDERS the parties to file briefs addressing an appropriate course of action for 

this Court. The briefs shall address (1) the similarity of the facts, claims, relief, defenses, and 

arguments between the cases, (2) the extent to which the putative classes in the cases overlap, 

(3) whether the Court should hold this case in abeyance pending a decision from Judge Self on the 

pending motions, and (4) any other concerns the parties have regarding the Georgia action. Cross 

briefs shall be filed no later than July 8, 2022, and the parties may file cross responses by July 22, 

2022.

SO ORDERED on this 17th day of June, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00453-O Document 24 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1640
<PAGE> 1                                                 EXHIBIT 11.

MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except earnings per share) (Unaudited)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>

                                                        Three Months Ended  
                                                             March 31,              
                                                        1996        1997     
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>       <C>      
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding      3,358      3,375    
Common stock equivlents from outstanding stock options        0          0    
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average common and common stock equivalents outstanding   3,358      3,375   
===============================================================================
Net Income                                               $ (651)    $ (217)     
===============================================================================
Earnings per share (1)                                   $ (.19)    $ (.06)   
===============================================================================
</TABLE>

(1) Fully diluted earnings per share have not been presented because the
effects are not material.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CATHERINE CONTRERAS-BELTRAN, § 

#57313-177, § 

 § 

Movant, § 

 § 

V. § Civil No. 3:22-CV-976-N-BK 

 § (Criminal No. 3:16-CR-326-N-5) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

 § 

Respondent. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in 

this case. Objections were filed. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed 

the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no 

error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 16TH day of September, 2022. 

____________________________________ 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00976-N-BK Document 13 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 115
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________ 

No. 22-10505

___________ 

John Doe,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Texas Christian University; Victor J. Boschini, Jr.,

Defendants—Appellants.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-297 

______________________________ 

ORDER:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s motion to view and obtain sealed 

documents is GRANTED. 

___________________________ 

 Patrick E. Higginbotham

 United States Circuit Judge

Case: 22-10505 Document: 00516489239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2022

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 100 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 7001
#### STEPHENS v. STATE.

No. 25147.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

Carlos C. Cadena, Austin, for appellant on appeal.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder with malice and by the jury assessed a term of 38 years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

It does appear from the transcript that the judgment herein finds appellant guilty and assesses his • punishment at not less than two years and not more than 38 years in the penitentiary. However, the verdict of the jury only provides for 38 years, therein. This matter finds its counterpart in Ex parte Simmons, Tex.Cr.App., 229 S.W.2d 167.

The judgment herein will therefore be reformed to evidence appellant’s guilt as found by the jury and that he be punished as provided herein by confinement in the state penitentiary for a term'of 38 years. •

It is noted that the sentence conforms to the indeterminate sentence statute, Art. 775, Vernon’s C.C.P.

The judgment herein is reformed to show a punishment of 38 years, and as thus reformed, it will be affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant insists that the record does not reflect the jurisdiction of the District Court of Wilson County, because there is nothing showing that the venue of the case had been transferred from Bexar County, where the offense was alleged to have been committed and the indictment returned.

Since the filing of such motion there has been filed in this court a supplemental transcript evidencing that the venue of the case was properly transferred from Bexar County to Wilson County.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          48,957
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,436
<INVENTORY>                                        387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,111
<PP&E>                                         118,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,862
<BONDS>                                         27,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           405
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,192
<SALES>                                         55,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,146
<CGS>                                           43,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,592)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
ORDER Solo Page

Case No. 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WILLIE LEE HAVMMERI, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT

§

METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEMS, §

DALLAS, §

§

Defendant. §

Order for Back Pay and Continued Salary

Based on the irrefutable evidence the Plaintiff provided regarding the allegations listed on 

the Termination Letter and Defendant’s Company Policy on how such matters are investigated 

(Doc. 24, Exhibit 2), The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion For Back Pay and Continued 

Salary (Docs. 24, 28, 29 & 34), together with any responses or replies thereto, and is otherwise 

fully advised. The Court finds that the Motion is well taken for each of the reasons set forth therein 

and should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore

ORDERED the Defendant must pay $115,200.00 in back salary and a continued $3,600 in 

monthly salary until this matter has reached a conclusion by settlement or trial. These amounts, 

aforementioned, can and will be deducted from total damages sought for the claims of 

Discrimination & Retaliation. The Defendant has 14 days after the signing of this Order to contact 

the Plaintiff and comply. 

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this ______ day of ____________ 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00594-E-BT Document 38 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 139