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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 20 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 20

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  permit the Congress to limit expenditures in elections for Federal 
                                office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

   Mr. Dingell introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  permit the Congress to limit expenditures in elections for Federal 
                                office.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The Congress shall have authority to limit expenditures in 
elections for Federal office.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Vera Shlakman et al., Petitioners, against Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

August 2, 1957.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel*(J. *L. Radlein*of counsel), for respondent.

*London, Simpson & London*for petitioners.

Jacob J. Schwartzwald, J.

Respondent moves to retax a bill of costs heretofore taxed by the Clerk of the County of Kings. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York in amending the remittitur in this cause so as to conform to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States ordered that the orders of the Appellate Division and the Special Term of this court be reversed in denying petitioner’s request for relief and further awarded “ costs in all courts ” to the petitioner. The clerk taxed costs upon the appeal to the Appellate Division pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 1508 of the Civil Practice Act. The respondent asserts that costs in the proceeding can only be taxed in accordance with subdivision 2 of section 1508 of the Civil Practice Act, and not until the costs in the Appellate Division are determined may there be any taxation for any disbursements in connection with the appeal to the Appellate Division.

*398The proceeding herein was instituted pursuant tó article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review and rescind an order of the respondent discharging the petitioner from his position as an associate professor at Brooklyn College. In a certiorari proceeding in *Cohen*v. *Fields*(88 N. Y. S. 2d 455) this court directed the clerk to tax costs in such proceeding pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 1508 of the Civil Practice Act. The decision therein was in line with, the customary practice of the Appellate Division of the Second Department to allow full appeal costs only where the appeal is from a judgment rendered after trial of an issue of fact. (See Eighth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1942, pp. 455-456.) Accordingly, it is my view that the clerk erred in taxing costs pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 1508 of the Civil Practice Act. Under subdivision 2 of said section an award “ not exceeding fifty dollars besides taxable disbursements ” may be fixed by the court. It would appear that the petitioner’s remedy to have the amount fixed is in the Court of Appeals *(Tormey*v. *La Guardia,*N. Y. L. J., Dec. 13, 1938, p. 2112, col. 3; Eighth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1942, p. 454). Costs having been awarded, although the amount has not been determined, it would appear that the taxation for disbursements in connection with the appeal was proper. The right to disbursements is incident to the right to costs (Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, Vol. 11, p. 169; Vol. 23, p. 194) and not as to the amount of costs.

The motion accordingly is granted to the extent that the items taxed for “App. to Appellate Div. before arg’t. — $20.00 ” and “ App. to Appellate Div. for arg’t. —$40.00 ” be stricken.

Settle order on notice.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE020 80

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### HEAD v. STATE.

No. 24130.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1948.

Guy H. McNeely, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Elmer H. Parish, Dist. Atty., Clyde Fillmore, and Alan B. Haley, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Wichita Falls, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Felony theft is the offense; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

While the owner was temporarily out of the immediate vicinity of the cash register in his place of business, appellant was seen by patrons to go behind the counter, open the cash register, take money therefrom, and flee from the building. By direct testimony, the facts show appellant to be guilty of theft.

Appellant’s contention that a charge on circumstantial evidence should have been given is not well taken.

Appellant contends that there is evidence sufficient to show that the amount of money taken was less than $50 and that he was therefore entitled to have misdemeanor theft submitted.

According to the testimony of the injured party, $54 was taken from the cash register. He arrived at this amount by the following process: He placed $34 in the cash register when he opened for business the day of the theft; during the day he took in and, according to the cash register, put in the register $47; immediately after the theft, there remained in the register $27, evidencing a shortage of $54.

We fail to find any testimony showing that a less amount was taken, or that during the day there was taken from the register any amount of money by any other person. Two persons had access to the register, the owner and one employee. These persons testified, and negatived the taking by them of any money.

We are constrained to agree with the trial court that there is no testimony showing that appellant took from the register less than $50.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 27 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, January 27, 
                  1993, to Tuesday, February 2, 1993.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, January 27, 1993, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 2, 1993.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AN GYEONG HONG, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72068 Age n c y No. A088-892-215 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. R an Gy e ong Hong, a

native and c itiz e n of South Kore a , pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing her a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng he r a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w a n d for substa ntia l e vide nc e fa c tua l findings. Husy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2008). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. Hong doe s not ra ise any

c ha lle nge to thea ge nc y ’ s dispositive finding tha

t he r a sy lum a

pplic ation is time -ba

rre d . Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not spe c ific a lly ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). Thus, wede ny he r pe tition a s to he r a sy lum c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t, e ve n if Hong suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c t e d ground, he r pre sum p tion of future pe rse c ution wa s re butte d by a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in c irc um s ta

nc e s. Se e8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A); Gonzale z-He rnande

z v . Ashc roft , 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th C ir. 2003) (substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supporte d finding tha t pre sum ption of future pe rse c ution wa s re butte d). Furthe r, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Hong’ s fe ar of proble m s if she de c ide s to ta ke out a ne w loa n from loa n sha rks is too spe c ulat ive to m e e t he r burde n. S e e N agoulk o v . IN S, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003) (fe a r wa s “ too spe c ulat ive ” unde r c irc um sta nc e s of c a se ). Ac c ordingly , Hong’ s c la im for withholding of rem ova l fa ils. Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Hong fa ile d to e sta

b lish it is m

ore like l y tha

n not shewould betorture d by 1 2 - 7 2 0 6 8 2or with the a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to South Kore a . Se e Silay a

v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 0 6 8 3
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 52003XC0807(02)

**Publication of a request pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to amend one or more parts of the specification of a name registered pursuant to Article 17 or Article 6 of that Regulation***Official Journal C 187 , 07/08/2003 P. 0007 - 0008*

Publication of a request pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to amend one or more parts of the specification of a name registered pursuant to Article 17 or Article 6 of that Regulation

(2003/C 187/03)

Publication confers the right to object within the meaning of Articles 7 and 12d of the Regulation. Any objections to this request must be forwarded via the competent authority of a Member State, a WTO Member country or a third country recognised under Article 12(3) within six months of the publication date.

The amendment is not a minor one and it must therefore be published under Article 6(2) of the Regulation.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2081/92

APPLICATION TO AMEND A SPECIFICATION: ARTICLE 9

1. Registered name: "Les Garrigues"

2. Responsible department in the Member State Name: Subdirección General de Denominaciones de Calidad y Relaciones Interprofesionales y Contractuales. Dirección General de Alimentación. Subsecretaría de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación del Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación

Address: Paseo Infanta Isabel, 1 - E-28071 Madrid

Tel. (34) 913 47 53 94

Fax (34) 913 47 54 10

3. Amendments requested - specification heading:

[square  ] name

[square  ] description

>PIC FILE= "C_2003187EN.000702.TIF">

geographical area

[square  ] proof of origin

[square  ] method of production

[square  ] link

[square  ] labelling

[square  ] national requirements

- amendments:

The geographical area covered by this designation is to be extended to include the following municipalities:

>TABLE>

From the point of view of the link with the environment (historical, soil, relief and climatic factors), the geographical area to be extended continues to demonstrate a cohesion and degree of homogeneity similar to what it had prior to the requested extension (initial PDO) and fulfils all the basic requirements set out in the specification for this protected designation of origin listed in the Community register, producing an extra virgin olive oil with the same characteristics as the protected olive oil.

4. Date of receipt of the full application: 19.2.2003.
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION

     By  signing  below,  each  of the  undersigned  officers  hereby  certifies
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information  contained in this report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Logansport Financial Corp.

     Signed this 13th day of May, 2003.




/s/Dottye Robeson                       /s/David G. Wihebrink
-----------------------------------     ----------------------------------------
(Signature of Authorized Officer)       (Signature of Authorized Officer)

Dottye Robeson                          David G. Wihebrink
-----------------------------------     ----------------------------------------
(Typed Name)                            (Typed Name)

Treasurer                               President and Chief Executive Officer
-----------------------------------     ----------------------------------------
(Title)                                 (Title)


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
approved to  Logansport  Financial  Corp.  and will be  retained  by  Logansport
Financial  Corp. and forwarded to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Office of Public Affairs

Press Release: November 4, 2022

Contact: Treasury Public Affairs, press@treasury.gov

READOUT: Financial Stability Oversight Council Meeting on 

November 4, 2022

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen convened a meeting of 

the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in executive session by videoconference. 

During the meeting, the Council heard a presentation from Federal Reserve Bank of New York 

staff on recent market developments and financial system vulnerabilities. 

The Council also received an update from Treasury staff on the development of the Council’s 

2022 annual report. 

Additionally, the Council received an update from the Council’s staff-level Hedge Fund 

Working Group (HFWG) on further progress made in developing a risk-monitoring framework, 

which is intended to inform the Council’s assessment of current and emerging risks to financial 

stability related to hedge fund activities. 

The Council also heard a presentation from Superintendent Dwyer on climate-related financial 

risk in the insurance sector, including an update on Hurricane Ian and its effect on local 

communities. Director Seitz also provided an overview of the Federal Insurance Office’s recent 

climate-related efforts including their proposed data collection and international engagement. 

Additionally, the Council voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on October 3, 

2022. 

In attendance at the Council meeting by videoconference were the following members: 

• Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury (Chairperson of the Council)

• Jerome H. Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

• Michael J. Hsu, Acting Comptroller of the Currency
• Rohit Chopra, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

• Gary Gensler, Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission

• Martin Gruenberg, Acting Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• David Gillers, Chief of Staff, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (acting pursuant 

to delegated authority)

• Naa Awaa Tagoe, Deputy Director, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, Federal 

Housing Finance Agency (acting pursuant to delegated authority)

• Todd M. Harper, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration

• Thomas Workman, Independent Member with Insurance Expertise

• Steven Seitz, Director, Federal Insurance Office (non-voting member)

• Charles G. Cooper, Commissioner, Texas Department of Banking (non-voting member)

• Elizabeth K. Dwyer, Superintendent of Financial Services, Rhode Island Department of 

Business Regulation (non-voting member)

• Melanie Lubin, Securities Commissioner, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, 

Securities Division (non-voting member)

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting 

minutes is available at http://www.fsoc.gov.

####
Ex. C

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID 412
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID 413
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID 414
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID 415
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID 416
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID 417
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID 418
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID 419
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID 420
Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 19-3 Filed 06/01/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID 421
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (C)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DELAYED FILING

On 24 May 2023, Defendant asked this Court for expedited consideration of the parties’ 

competing motions docketed as Dkt. #s. 13, 15, and 17. In support of its request—which Plaintiff 

supports—Defendant stated that Plaintiff would file his opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion, 

Dkt. No. 17, by today, 31 May. Plaintiff hereby gives notice to the Court that despite the 

undersigned’s best efforts, he will be unable to meet this self-imposed deadline due to technical 

issues beyond his control, and that Plaintiff will file his opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion 

tomorrow, 1 June 2023. He apologizes to the Court for the delay and attests that the delay is 

entirely attributable to his necessary reliance on a third party to resolve the technical issues 

(which were caused by that third party in the first place).

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 18 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 398
2

Date: May 31, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan

Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

N.D. Tex. Bar #984704DC

National Security Counselors

4702 Levada Terrace

Rockville, MD 20853

301-728-5908

240-681-2189 fax

Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 18 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 399
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00058-Z-BR

§

ZAIDA ALICIA VALDEZ (2) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ZAIDA ALICIA VALDEZ (2), 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 Superseding 

Indictment. After cautioning and examining ZAIDA ALICIA VALDEZ (2) 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 ZAIDA ALICIA VALDEZ (2) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) 

and 841(b)(1)(C) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE FENTANYL 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: November 28, 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-00058-Z-BR Document 61 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 209
### NUMBER 13

- 1 9

- 00 1 74

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE FRANK BECK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Per Curiam Order

Relator Frank Beck f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on

April 8 , 2 019

. Through this original pro ceeding, relator contends that the trial court erred

by granting sanctions based on spoliation.

The Court request s that Sandra Beck Mills, o r any others whose interest would be

directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus

on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R

. C IV

. P

.

52.2, 52.4, 52.8.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

9th day of April , 201 9

.