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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 275 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 275

       To require the withdrawal of American forces from Somalia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1993

Mr. Roth introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
       To require the withdrawal of American forces from Somalia.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That all United States Armed Forces participating in the United Nations 
operation in Somalia shall be withdrawn from Somalia not later than 
thirty days after the date of enactment of this joint resolution. After 
that date, United States Armed Forces shall not participate in or 
operate in support of the United Nations-led force in Somalia.

                                 <all>
```
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SANTA IGNACIA CARCAMO- §

ROBLES, #10711-509, §

MOVANT, § 

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01087-E-BK

§ (CRIMINAL NO. 3:20-CR-00185-E-10)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 RESPONDENT. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of the United States magistrate judge. The petitioner filed no objections. The Court has reviewed 

the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error and has found none. IT IS 

THEREFORE ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge are accepted. Moreover, considering the record in this case, the Court 

DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its 

finding that the Movant has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s 

“assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would 

find “it debatable whether the [movant] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” 

and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

(Signature Page Follows)

Case 3:22-cv-01087-E-BK Document 15 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED

SIGNED this 22nd day of May, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01087-E-BK Document 15 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (1189).                    

*Date and Time:*                         December 19-20, 2000; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Leon Esterowitz, Program Director, Biomedical Engineering and Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 292-8320.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate unsolicited proposals and proposals received under the Initiative on Sensing and Imaging Technologies for Multi-Use Applications Program Announcement (Announcement Number NSF 00-106), as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and person information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: November 6, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28783  Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
TEMPLATE 3
 

(use only for criminal cases to move forfeited money from the Treasury Suspense 

Account to the USVSST Fund after receipt of final decision from DOJ or TEOAF)
 

MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN FARLEY 

ACTING DIRECTOR 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ASSET FORFEITURE 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: Request to transfer funds relating to 

USVSST Fund 

Pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 20144(e)(2)(A)(1), it has been determined that 100% 

shall be transferred from the 

suspense account to the Fund for United States Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism. 

Please see the completed Form 2 disposition package with the necessary information. 

If there are any questions, or in need of additional documentation, please contact 

Attachments: 

Original Memo 

Forfeiture Order 

TEOAF - Form 2 

DOJ and/or TEOAF Memo Deeming the case or amount eligible for USVSST Fund 

IPAC info for USVSST Fund
### Regulatory Evaluation 

# ')..0 1 

# <-r- ( 

# t- o.)o-A-l.J Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -··

**~**



## If

you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. 

## If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of tlze changed cell
. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g
., aircraft, engine, (e.g. , Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Inspect Attach 6
.0 $79 

### 38 Fittings

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $22,382 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ On-Condition Costs : 

## @ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup) Replace One attach fitting when only 12.0 $95 one is found to be out oftolerance



### 7

### Replace Both attach fittings when both 24.0 $190 

### are found to be out oftolerance
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Mooney warrants labor and parts. On condition replacement labor is 12 hours per side; 24 labor hours if both sides require replacement. Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 

# G YES* 

## D NO [8] *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# 0 YES* 

## D NO [8] *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

## D N0[8] Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation 

### in Alaska. ls it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? 

# G YES* 

## D N0[8] *Explanation:



### 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND BY THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS MARCH 31, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,143
<SECURITIES>                                     5,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,794
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,551
<PP&E>                                         197,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,452
<BONDS>                                         74,676
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,315
<COMMON>                                           511
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,304
<SALES>                                         44,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,469
<CGS>                                           36,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,072)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from Kalan Gold
Corp.  unaudited balance sheet as of March 31, 1998 and the related statement of
income for the three  months  then ended and is  qualified  in it's  entirety by
reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000940516
<NAME>                        Kalan Gold Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         2537
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         5446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136678
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       73
<OTHER-SE>                                     (130800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5805
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


        

</TABLE>
#### CORNISH v. BAKER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1951.

*912H. M. Grigs’by, Springfield, for appellant.

Polin & Polin, Springfield, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying Roy Cornish a writ of habeas corpus in the Washington County Court.

In his petition for the writ Cornish charged that Will and Myrtle Baker were wrongfully holding his nine year old daughter, Betty Lou Cornish. In their “Plea to Jurisdiction and Answer” the Bakers set forth a judgment in a divorce proceeding between Irene Cornish and Roy Cornish. The parties were divorced and Roy was granted the custody of a son of the couple, while Irene was awarded the custody of the daughters, Betty Lou and Shirley Ann. The answer recited that the judgment was still in full force and effect. There was the further allegation that Betty Lou was still in the custody of her mother, Irene Cornish, and that the mother was keeping the child in the home of the Bakers, who were the parents of Irene. Roy Cornish demurred to the “Plea to Jurisdiction and Answer.” The judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted was then entered.

We think the judge disposed of the case properly. The circumstances are different from those in Setser v. Caldwell, 300 Ky. 356, 188 S.W.2d 451. There it was held that the judgment in a former divorce proceeding awarding custody of a child was not conclusive in a habeas corpus proceeding. The opinion recited that the opposing party should have been permitted to -file a response and that proof should have been taken. In the case before us, in addition to a recitation of the judgment in the divorce proceeding wherein the custody of the children was determined, there was the further allegation that Betty Lou Cornish was still in the custody of her mother and that she was making her home with her mother in the home of the Bakers, her grandparents. This allegation was admitted on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 201

Designating the beach at 53 degrees 53 minutes 51 seconds north, 166

degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds west to 53 degrees 53 minutes 48

seconds north, 166 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds west on Hog Island,

which lies in the Northeast Bay of Unalaska, Alaska as ‘Arkansas Beach’

in commemoration of the 206th regiment of the National Guard, who

served during the Japanese attack on Dutch Harbor, Unalaska on June

3 and 4, 1942.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1993

Mr. THORNTON (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Ms. LAMBERT, Mr. DICKEY, and Mr. HUTCHINSON) introduced the following joint resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the beach at 53 degrees 53 minutes 51 seconds

north, 166 degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds west to 53

degrees 53 minutes 48 seconds north, 166 degrees 34

minutes 21 seconds west on Hog Island, which lies in

the Northeast Bay of Unalaska, Alaska as ‘Arkansas

Beach’ in commemoration of the 206th regiment of the

National Guard, who served during the Japanese attack

on Dutch Harbor, Unalaska on June 3 and 4, 1942.
2

•HJ 201 IH

Whereas it is commonly overlooked that the Aleutian Islands

are the only part of American territory in history to be

invaded and overtaken by an enemy;

Whereas during World War II, an Arkansas National Guard

Regiment, the 206th Coast Artillery, served diligently

and bravely on Hog Island, Unalaska;

Whereas the 206th Coast Artillery Regiment of Arkansas was

guarding Dutch Harbor during the time of the Japanese

attack;

Whereas during the Japanese invasion of Dutch Harbor, 3

young soldiers of the 206th Coast Artillery Unit were

killed;

Whereas the city of Unalaska, Alaska, has passed Resolution

92–28, designating the beach at 53 degrees 53 minutes

51 seconds north 166 degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds

west to 53 degrees 53 minutes 48 seconds north 166 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds west on Hog Island, Unalaska as ‘‘Arkansas Beach’’; and

Whereas the State of Alaska has passed Senate Concurrent

Resolution 37, as sent to the State Geographic Board,

which names this beach ‘‘Arkansas Beach’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the beach at 53 degrees 53 minutes 51 seconds

4 north, 166 degrees 34 minutes 15 seconds west to 53 de5 grees 53 minutes 48 seconds north, 166 degrees 34 min6 utes 21 seconds west on Hog Island, Unalaska be named

7 ‘‘Arkansas Beach’’ in commemoration of the 206th Coast
3

•HJ 201 IH

1 Artillery Regiment and the men who served and died dur2 ing the air attacks on Dutch Harbor, Unalaska on June

3 3 and 4, 1942.

Æ
#### SOVEREIGN CAMP, W. O. W. v. DOUGLAS.

No. 9178.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Oct. 1, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1941.

Collins, Jackson & Snodgrass and Olin Elanks, all of San Angelo, for appellant.

No briefs filed for appellee.

BAUGH, Justice.

Appeal is from judgment of the County Court, on appeal to that court from a judgment of the Justice Court, in favor of ap-pellee against appellant for the sum of •$100, together with interest from the date •of the jttdgment, and costs of suit.

Pleadings in both the Justice Court and the County Court were oral. The record .shows, however, an agreement between the parties with reference to the pleadings. This agreement shows that the appellee’s •demand against the appellant was for the sum of $100.

Art. 1819, R.C.S.192S, as amended by Acts 1929, 41st Legislature, p. 68, Chap. 33, Sec. 1, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1819, gives jurisdiction to Courts of Civil Appeals in •civil cases, “when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered shall exceed One Hundred Dollars exclusive of interest and costs.”

■ It affirmatively appears, therefore, from the language of the statute, the pleadings agreed to, and the judgment rendered, that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Vernon’s Ann.Texas Statutes, Art. 1819, and numerous annotations thereunder.

It follows, therefore, that the appeal herein should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

                    The Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation has determined that the establishment of the Business and Operations Advisory Committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861*et seq.*                     This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.                          ( print page 66566)    

*Name of Committee:*                     Business and Operations Advisory Committee.                

*Nature/Purpose:*                     The committee will be strictly advisory and will advise the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Information Officer of the National Science Foundation concerning issues related to the oversight, integrity, development and enhancement of NSF's business operations.                

*NSF Contact:*                     Ms. Joanna Rom, Senior Advisor, Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 405, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8200.                

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28396  Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT HOPKINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant.

No. 3:22-CV-00706-E

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of Defendant the Department of Defense’s Motion to 

Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, and the enclosed Unclassified and Classified 

Appendices, the Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff Dr. Robert Hopkins, III’s 

claims challenging the procedures by which his manuscripts were processed are 

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Judgment is hereby ENTERED for Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims challenging 

Defendant’s redactions to Plaintiff’s manuscripts. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE 

this matter. 

Dated: _________________ ____________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 32-2 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 552