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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 134 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 134

Designating April 25 through May 1, 1993, as ``National Crime Victims' 
                             Rights Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1993

Mr. Gekas (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following joint 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and 
                             Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Designating April 25 through May 1, 1993, as ``National Crime Victims' 
                             Rights Week''.

Whereas there were over 35,000,000 crimes committed last year in America, with 
        one violent crime occurring every 17 seconds;
Whereas more than 4 out of 5 Americans are personally ``very concerned'' about 
        violent crime;
Whereas victims of crime across America deserve respect and assistance not only 
        from the criminal justice system, but from society as well;
Whereas there is a crucial need to provide crime victims with quality programs 
        and services to help them recover from the devastating psychological, 
        physical, emotional and financial hardships resulting from their 
        victimization;
Whereas there are 10,000 public and private agencies and organizations in the 
        United States that are dedicated to improving the plight of crime 
        victims;
Whereas the Nation's victims' rights movement and allied professions deserve 
        recognition for their tireless efforts on behalf of victims of crime and 
        their struggle to reduce senseless violence in America; and
Whereas it is essential for all Americans to join together and commit their 
        individual and collective resources to victim assistance and violence 
        reduction: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That April 25 through May 1, 
1993, is designated as ``National Crime Victims' Rights Week'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the week with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2006-3303 

VERLYN E. RICHARDS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

Verlyn E. Richards, of Southfield, Michigan, pro se. 

 

Joyce G. Friedman, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States 

Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the 

brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General 

Counsel, and Sara B. Rearden, Acting Associate General Counsel. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2006-3303 

 VERLYN E. RICHARDS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

 Respondent. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: May 11, 2007 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, BRYSON and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Verlyn E. Richards appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 

dismissing her appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Richards v. Dep’t of the 

Army, CH-0752-05-0883-I-1 (MSPB May 12, 2006). Because Richards has failed to set 

out any allegation that, if true, would establish involuntary resignation, we affirm. 

 Richards contends that her decision to retire was the product of improper agency 

action, coercion, duress, intolerable working conditions, and agency misinformation. 

Each contention, however, is without merit. Because her position required a security 

clearance, it was not improper for the agency to indefinitely suspend her based on the 
revocation of her clearance, pending its investigation of the issue. Any role that her 

suspension had in giving rise to unpleasant financial conditions cannot, therefore, 

support a finding that her resignation was involuntary. Next, substantial evidence 

supports the board’s determination that her allegations of workplace harassment and 

mistreatment do not establish coercion, intolerable working conditions, or duress. This 

is especially so given that, due to her suspension, Richards had not worked at the 

agency in several months, thereby diminishing any causal connection between her 

working environment and her decision to retire. Finally, Richards has failed to make 

any specific allegation that could support a finding that agency misinformation gave rise 

to her resignation. 

2006-3303 2
#### In the Matter of Henry H. Boeckmann, Petitioner, against William H. Clayton et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

August 10, 1951.

*982
      *S. Martin Adelman*for petitioner.

*Fred J. Munder*for respondents.

Charles S. Coldest, J.

Application for an order directing William Clayton and Robert Hairston, as Commissioners of Elections for Suffolk County, to accept and file the petition purporting to designate Henry H. Boeckmann for the party position of member of the Republican county committee for the 13th Election District of the Town of Huntington in Suffolk County.

According to the enrollment records for the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, for the year 1951, at least 32 valid signatures of the enrolled members of the Republican party are required for a valid designating petition. An examination of the designating petition, dated July 16, 1951, filed on behalf of the petitioner, discloses 40 signatures. Of these 9, Isabella Otto, August Otto, Emma Berger, Marie T. Gerty, Fred J. Gerty, Bennett R. Fisher, Roslind Fisher, Levi Ericson and E. J. Shakespeare were not dated, and 3, Richard E. Allen, John Haack and Elizabeth Haack were rejected because it is claimed and was not controverted upon the argument that these signers are not enrolled voters.

This court sustains the action of the Board of Elections in rejecting the signatures mentioned. The number of valid signatures remaining is 28 and inasmuch as the number required is 32, the action of the Board of Elections in rejecting the petition was correct.

Upon the argument of this application the petitioner stressed the fact that the official *“*Filed ” stamp of the Board of Elections had been impressed upon the designating petition in consequence whereof, it is urged that the Board of Elections is precluded from making any subsequent examination of the nominating petition to determine its validity. The law is to *983the contrary. It is the duty of the Board of Elections to accept petitions offered within the statutory period and it is likewise the duty of the board to thereafter determine the validity of the petitions within the statutory period. Within such statutory period the Board of ..Elections gave written notice of the insufficiency of the designating petition to the applicant here and ample time was afforded the applicant to examine the records of the Board of Elections had he chosen so to do.

Upon the application to Special Term the burden was upon the applicant to establish the validity of the petition in question. Upon the hearing the applicant offered no factual proof to challenge the validity of the determination of the Board of Elections and he offered no proof to sustain the validity of the designating petition. The burden was upon him to disprove the alleged irregularities and to establish the requisite number of valid signatures. The applicant wholly failed to sustain the burden of proof. Indeed, he offered no proof. The motion of the petitioner is denied.

Submit order.
Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 92 Filed 10/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 401
Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 92 Filed 10/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 402
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2020-10-15 10:39:41","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2020"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["9","302","56","85","2262","23","344","53","19"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["7","267","47","88","1856","22","389","54","26"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["16","1249","41","29","724","2","92","2"," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2020","quarter":"Q4"}
Subsecretary of Transport
Directorate General of Civil Aeronautic
4.1.1941

“2011 Year of Tourism in Mexico”

PAUL L. GRETCH Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Mexico City, August 5, 2011

I hereby make reference to the Agreement Between the Government of The United
States of America And The Government of the Un ited Mexican States Of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended, which established that each one of the Parties may designate up to two airlines for each city-pair in most cases, and up to three airlines in 14 markets, for the operation of the combination scheduled air services specified in Annex I to the Agreement.

Regarding this matter, and taking into account the circumstances c onfronting one of the Mexican airlines (Mexicana de Aviación) which is desi gnated in accordance with such bilateral instrument in various city-pairs, and that at this moment we cannot withdraw its designation and give it to another airline to operate in the same city-pair, I would be very thankful if, within the framework of the good bilateral cooperation and relations, especially in the matter of air transportation, which have always distinguished our countries, you would consider gi ving to the Mexican airline Concesionaria Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A.P.I. de C.V., “VOLARIS”, an extrabilateral authorization for the route MéxicoChicago, for the operation of scheduled combinat ion services, with the understanding that such
authorization will be as stated in t he Agreement referred to above wh ile Mexicana de Av iación does not operate on such routes, meaning that during such period t he [designation] limit of two airlines in each citypair, or three, will be exceeded, as the case may be, and that such authorization will be extra-bilateral and temporary in nature.

Pending of a favorable response to this petition of a special nature, I take this opportunity to send my best regards.

S I N C E R E L Y EFFECTIVE SUFFRAGE, NO RE-ELECTION
GENERAL DIRECTOR

LIC. HÉCTOR GONZÁLEZ WEEKS

SSR /RGG C.C. Mr. Felipe Duarte Olvera-Sub secretary of Transportation
C.C. Directorate General of Civ il Aeronautic- Offices –President C.C. Concesionaria Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S. A.P.I. “Volaris”-Avenida Prolongación Paseo de la Reforma #490, first floor, Col. Santa Fe Peña Blanca, Z.C. 01210.- President. [A stamped seal reading:] S.C.T.
Directorate General of
Civil Aeronautic

Aug 5 2011 Correspondence Sub-directorate of Regular Aviation Dispatch
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

249) ll-K- (I) -62 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 249 of 325 
P.2 

ENERGY SCENARIO SPECIFICATIONS. 

EEA, Inc. 

h Pl 

II-K-(I)-62 

July 8, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-62
#### TEXAS STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. DAICHES.

No. 2407.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 20, 1941.

O. M. Street, of Dallas, for appellant.

J, C. Jacobs, of Corsicana, for appellee.

TIREY, Justice.

This case is before the court on motion of appellee to affirm *on*certificate because of the failure of appellant to file the transcript within the time provided by law. The record discloses that the trial court rendered final judgment on the 30th day of November, 1940, at which time notice of appeal was given. On December 18, 1940, appellant perfected his appeal by filing appeal bond. The time within which the transcript should have been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals expired January 29, 1941. Revised Statutes, art. 1839, as amended 1931 (Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, art. 1839). Appellee filed his motion to affirm on certificate on February 5, 1941, during the term to which appellant’s appeal was returnable.

Under the provisions of R.S. art. 1841, the appellee is entitled to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed. Beaver v. Beaver, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 279, and authorities there cited.

The motion to affirm on certificate is granted, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCKDIYISION

NO. 5:22-CR-065-01-H

TAYRON DESHAWN THOMAS,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTTT.IG REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE LINITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GIJILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance wift 28 U.S.C.

0636oX1)'theundersigredDistrictJudgeisoftheopinionthattheReportand

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court',s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED

JAMES LE NDzuX

ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

oatedMarchl ,2023.

I,]NITED

Case 5:22-cr-00065-H-BQ Document 43 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
#### CARILLO v. STATE.

No. 25535.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 5, 1951.

*949No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

The complaint and information appear regular on their face; and nothing being presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<page>					          EXHIBIT 31.02



CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

  1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

  2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant and have:

  a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision,  to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

  b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and



<page>


5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.







Date:  May 10, 2004          /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                Demeter Management Corporation,
                                general partner of the registrant
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 75
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 76
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 77
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 78
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 79
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 80
30 November

for

Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 81
Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 23 Filed 12/01/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 82
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00061-Z-BR

§

JESUS GONZALEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

JESUS 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 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining JESUS 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 JESUS GONZALEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) -

CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM 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: July 29, 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-00061-Z-BR Document 26 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54