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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 183 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 183

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               allow an item veto of appropriation bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1993

   Mr. Hancock 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 
               allow an item veto of appropriation bills.

    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 President may disapprove any item of appropriation in any 
bill. If any bill is approved by the President, any item of 
appropriation contained therein which is not disapproved shall become 
law. The President shall return with his objections any item of 
appropriation disapproved to the House in which the bill containing 
such item originated. The Congress may, in the manner prescribed under 
section 7 of article I for bills disapproved by the President, 
reconsider any item disapproved under this article.''.

                                 <all>
```
Case 2:22-cr-00082-Z-BR Document 36 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 87
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4TH QUARTER 2018*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE** AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 2-MO 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 9/23 10/1 10/4 45.00 0.00 44.00 40.00 135.00 -6.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 9/30 10/8 10/11 45.00 0.00 44.00 40.00 155.00 -26.00

10/7 10/15 10/18 45.00 0.00 44.00 40.00 138.00 -9.00

10/14 10/22 10/25 45.00 0.00 44.00 40.00 26.00 138.00 17.00

10/21 10/29 11/1 45.00 0.00 44.00 40.00 138.00 -9.00

10/28 11/5 11/8 45.00 0.00 44.00 41.00 158.00 -28.00

11/4 11/12 11/15 45.00 25.00 44.00 41.00 138.00 17.00

11/11 11/19 11/22 45.00 25.00 44.00 41.00 26.00 135.00 46.00

11/18 11/26 11/29 45.00 25.00 44.00 41.00 135.00 20.00

11/25 12/3 12/6 45.00 25.00 46.00 41.00 155.00 2.00

12/2 12/10 12/13 45.00 25.00 46.00 41.00 135.00 22.00

12/9 12/17 12/20 45.00 25.00 46.00 41.00 26.00 133.00 50.00

12/16 12/24 12/27 45.00 25.00 46.00 41.00 133.00 24.00

1946.00 1826.00 120.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

2-year note 9/20 9/25 10/1 37.00 1.00

5-year note 9/20 9/26 10/1 38.00 1.00

7-year note 9/20 9/27 10/1 31.00 0.00 73.48 32.52

3-year Note 10/4 10/9 10/15 36.00 1.00

10-year Note (r) 10/4 10/10 10/15 23.00 0.00

30-year Bond (r) 10/4 10/11 10/15 15.00 0.00 29.00 45.00

30-year TIPS (r) 10/11 10/18 10/31 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00

2-year note 10/18 10/23 10/31 38.00 1.00

2-year FRN 10/18 10/24 10/31 19.00 1.00

5-year note 10/18 10/24 10/31 39.00 1.00

7-year note 10/18 10/25 10/31 31.00 0.00 111.65 15.35

3-year Note 11/1 11/6 11/15 37.00 1.00

10-year Note 11/1 11/7 11/15 27.00 1.00

30-year Bond 11/1 11/8 11/15 19.00 1.00 54.34 28.66

2-year FRN (r) 11/21 11/28 11/30 18.00 1.00 0.00 18.00

10-year TIPS (r) 11/9 11/15 11/30 11.00 0.00

2-year note 11/14 11/26 11/30 39.00 1.00

5-year note 11/14 11/27 11/30 40.00 1.00

7-year note 11/14 11/28 11/30 32.00 1.00 69.16 52.84

3-year Note 12/6 12/11 12/17 38.00 1.00

10-year Note (r) 12/6 12/12 12/17 24.00 1.00

30-year Bond (r) 12/6 12/13 12/17 16.00 1.00 23.99 54.01

5-year TIPS (r) 12/13 12/20 12/31 14.00 0.00

2-year FRN (r) 12/20 12/26 12/28 18.00 0.00

2-year note 12/20 12/26 12/31 40.00 1.00

5-year note 12/20 12/26 12/31 41.00 1.00

7-year note 12/20 12/27 12/31 32.00 0.00 76.18 68.82

758.00 437.81 320.19

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 440

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Settlement date does not yet reflect a proposed shift to an alternative bill settlement cycle
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 293 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 293

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That a revised edition of the book entitled ``History of the United 
States House of Representatives'', prepared under the supervision of 
the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives, 
shall be printed as a House document.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of which 4,750 
        copies shall be for the use of the Committee on House 
        Administration of the House of Representatives and 250 copies 
        shall be for the use of the Senate; or
            (2) such number of casebound copies of the document as does 
        not exceed a total production and printing cost of $75,000, 
        with such copies to be allocated in the same proportion as 
        described in paragraph (1).
    Sec. 3. Of the copies of the document for the use of the Committee 
on House Administration of the House of Representatives under section 
2(1), at the request of a Member of the House of Representatives, the 
Member shall be entitled to receive at least 5 copies. The Committee 
shall notify each Member of the entitlement under the preceding 
sentence. As used in this section, the term ``Member of the House of 
Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to, the Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative 
      day, October 6), 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 293

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of the book entitled ``History of the United 
                   States House of Representatives''.
```
Government RegulatoryImpact Model8/29/2006CAC_GRIM_v3.xlsINDUSTRY VALUE (NPV)0501001502002503003504004501

$ millionsBaseStandard
#### Margarita Minino et al., Respondents, and Maria Ruiz, Intervenor-Respondent, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered October 20, 1989, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting the defendant city’s motion to dismiss, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

This action consolidates claims based upon the unlawful denial of Home Relief benefits by application of the provisions of Social Services Law § 131-k (3) "deeming” the income of a sponsor available to a sponsored alien for a period of three years after such alien’s entry into the United States, for purposes of determining the eligibility of such alien for Home Relief benefits, whether or not such income is actually available. We reject the State’s argument that the Federal "deeming” policy set forth in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 and applicable to Federally funded public assistance programs, upon which Social Services Law § 131-k (3) is modeled, was intended by Congress to have the dual purpose of discouraging unqualified immigration into the United States and reducing the cost of public assistance, and thus that Federal preemption in the field of immigration mandates application of Social Services Law § 131-k (3) to the State-funded Home Relief program.

It has been held that not every State enactment which deals with aliens constitutes a regulation of immigration and is thus preempted by Federal law. *(See, De Canas v Bica,*424 US 351.) Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that the several States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the safety and welfare of all persons within the State, including aliens. *(De Canas v Bica, supra,*at 356-357.)

Article XVII, § 1 of the New York State Constitution imposes a duty on the State to aid the needy and the Legislature may not avoid that constitutional mandate by denying aid to *290such persons solely on the basis of criteria having nothing to do with need, such as the "deeming” provision of Social Services Law § 131-k (3). *(See, Tucker v Toia,*43 NY2d 1, 9.)

We find that it was error for Supreme Court to have denied the city defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as against it. The sole responsibility of the city is to administer the State’s public assistance program in New York City in accordance with State regulations, and thus the city defendant is not a necessary or proper party to the action. *(See, e.g., Joanne S. v Carey,*115 AD2d 4.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 160

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting

the period of time United States Senators and Representatives may serve.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1993

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. ARMEY, Mr.

GOSS, Mr. CRANE, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, and Mr.

FIELDS of Texas) 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 limiting the period of time United States Senators

and Representatives may serve.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 160 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person may serve in Congress more

5 than 2 full terms as a Senator. No person may serve in

6 Congress more than 3 full terms as a Representative.

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. Service as a Senator or Representative

8 before this article takes effect shall not be taken into ac9 count in determining service under section 1.’’.

Æ
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O S . A P - 7 6 , 5 8 8 & A P - 7 6 , 5 8 9

E X P A R T E J E S U S M A R T I N R U I Z , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R W R I T S O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O S . 1 0 7 2 7 5 7 & 1 0 7 2 7 6 3 I N T H E 2 3 2 N D D I S T R I C T C O U R T F R O M H A R R I S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of two char g es of indece ncy with a child and sentenc ed to t we l v e and nine y ear s’ imprisonment, respe ctively

. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convictions. Ruiz v. State , Nos. 14-08-00932- CR & 14-08- 00933-CR (Tex. App.–Houston [ 14 Dist.] Aug . 25, 2009) (unpublished). t h Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e counsel failed to timely

file petitions for discre tionary revie w .2

Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel’s aff idavit is cre dible and that counsel failed to timely file petitions for discretionar y revie w. The State ag ree s that Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, ther efor e, that Applicant is e ntitled to the opportunity to file out-of-time petitions for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nts of the Four teenth Court of Appea ls in Cause Nos. 14-08-00932- CR & 14-08-00933- CR that aff

irmed his conviction in Ca se Nos. 1072757 & 1072763 from the 232 J udicial District n d Court of Har

ris County

. Applicant shall file his petitio n s fo r d i scre tionary revie w with the Four teenth Court of Appe als within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: J une 29, 2011 Do not publish
## ATTACHMENT A

V AUSTRALIA BROCHURE

[ OMITTED FROM EMAIL SERVICE COPY]

AVAILABLE IN DOCKET AND
UPON REQUEST TO APPLICANTS

## ATTACHMENT B

V AUSTRALIA BROCHURE

[ OMITTED FROM EMAIL SERVICE COPY]

AVAILABLE IN DOCKET AND
UPON REQUEST TO APPLICANTSCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Document has been served this 15 th day of January, 2010, upon the following persons via email:

Marshall S. Sinick

Counsel for Alaska Airlines
msinick@ssd.com

Carl B. Nelson Jr.

Associate General Counsel

American Airlines Inc.
carl.nelson@aa.com

John L. Richardson Counsel for Amerijet International jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com

Angeline Bird
Sandra Lunsford Federal Express Corporation
anbird@fedex.com
sllunsford@fedex.com

Mark Atwood
Counsel for Kalitta Air
matwood@sherblackwell.com

Thomas V. Lydon Kelli Bryan Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. tom.lydon@evergreen.com charters@evergreenairlines.com

Russell E. Pommer

Associate General Counsel & Director of

Regulatory Affairs Atlas Air, Inc. rpommer@atlasair.com

Kevin P. Montgomery Polar Air Cargo, Inc. kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

Lawrence D. Wasko ldwasko@starpower.net Counsel for Arrow Air, Inc. Stephen Lachter lachter@starpower.net Counsel for ASTAR Air Cargo, Inc.

Howard Kass Benjamin T. Slocum US Airways howard_kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

David L. Vaughan

Danielle Fisher

Counsel for United Parcel Service dvaughan@kellydrye.com dfisher@kelleydrye.com

Hershel Kamen

Dan Weiss

Continental Airlines
hkamen@coair.com
dan.weiss@coair.com

Jeffrey A. Manley Julie Oettinger

United Airlines jeffrey.manley@united.com julie.oettinger@united.com

Mark McMillin

Assistant General Counsel World Airways Inc.
mcmillin@woa.com

Malcolm Benge mlbenge@zsrlaw.com Counsel for World Airways Inc.

Jonathan B. Hill jhill@dlalaw.com Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines, IncJohn Byerly Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs U.S. Department of State byerlyjr@state.gov

John Allen

Federal Aviation Administration john.allen@faa.gov

Todd Homan

Peter Irvine U.S. Department of Transportation todd.homan@dot.gov peter.irvine@dot.gov

Jill Ptacek U.S. Department of Justice Jill.Ptacek@usdoj.gov

Alexander Van der Bellen Delta Air Lines, Inc.
sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

Anita M. Mosner Sophy Chen Counsel for Virgin Blue International Airlines Pty Ltd d/b/a V Australia; Virgin Blue Airlines Pty. Ltd; Pacific Blue Airlines (Aust) Pty Ltd and Pacific Blue Airlines (NZ) Ltd
Case 4:22-cr-00124-P Document 20 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 32
Case 4:22-cr-00124-P Document 20 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 33
# Official Journal C 238/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.238.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 238 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5617 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.238.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 238

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5617 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 238/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6948 — Telenor/Globul/Germanos) (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 238/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6998 — Carlyle/Chesapeake Paperboard Business) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 238/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6948 — Telenor/Globul/Germanos) (1)

1

2013/C 238/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6998 — Carlyle/Chesapeake Paperboard Business) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 238/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2013/C 238/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 238/03

Euro exchange rates

2

2013/C 238/04

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 238/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6850 — Marine Harvest/Morpol) (1) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 238/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6850 — Marine Harvest/Morpol) (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GRANT COUNTY v. BALLARD, Sheriff.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1952.

Bradley & Bradley, Georgetown, for appellant.

*957L. M. Ackman, Williamstown, for appel-lee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is another case involving the proper compensation to which a sheriff is entitled for the collection of 1950 school taxes. The Grant County Board of Education is willing to pay 1 percent; the sheriff claims 21⁄2 percent; and the court allowed 2 percent.

The total common school taxes collected was roughly $155,000 out of a total of $286,-000 for all taxes.

It is shown by the record that the sheriff employs three deputies to assist him. One is paid $2,400 a year; another $1,800 a year; and the third $900 per year. These total $5,100. The sheriff added a charge of $300 per year for the use of his automobile. It is claimed by him that this full amount of $5,400 is chargeable to the collection of all taxes. He testified that he could perform all of the other duties of his office without deputies.

The court in fixing the 2 percent allowance found that it amounted to $5,720. This more than covers all of the deputies’ annual salaries and the automobile expense. It does not allow but a small amount as compensation for the sheriff’s own personal services, although he apparently did not expend any appreciable time himself in the tax collection work. It is claimed by him that he should have been allowed an additional amount of at least $250 a month for at least some period of the year.

The Board of Education takes the position that the total annual salaries of the three deputies cannot reasonably be charged to the collection of taxes. It contends that a reasonable allowance should be based upon the salaries paid for a six month period, which would be less than 1 percent.

As we decided in the case of Davie, Sheriff of Fulton County, Kentucky v. Board of Education of Hickman City Schools, Ky., 249 S.W.2d 954, we think it proper that cost estimates for the collection of taxes be calculated upon an annual basis. The six month period for which the Board of Education contends ignores the practical necessity for the sheriff to have full-time employees throughout the year.

From the record it does not appear that the entire annual salaries of the three deputies may properly be charged to the collection of taxes. On the other hand, an allowance should ibe made for the personal supervisory services of the sheriff. However, if we charged two-thirds of the deputies’ salaries to tax collection (the active tax collection period being 8 months out of the year), and allowed the sheriff $150 a month for the entire year, the resulting figure would be approximately the same one decided upon by the circuit court.

 Each case of this type must be decided upon the particular facts involved, and on the record before us, we are of the opinion that the lower court made a proper allowance in fixing the reasonable cost of collection at 2 percent of the school taxes collected.

The judgment is affirmed.
# CA2004140EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 140/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 140/1

---

Image

---
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 272

Designating October 29, 1993, as ‘‘National Firefighters Day’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1993

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. WELDON, Mr. VALENTINE, and Mr. BOEHLERT)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating October 29, 1993, as ‘‘National Firefighters

Day’’.

Whereas there are over 2,000,000 firefighters in the United

States;

Whereas firefighters respond to more than 2,300,000 fires

and 8,700,000 emergencies other than fires each year;

Whereas fires annually cause nearly 6,000 deaths and

$10,000,000,000 in property damages;

Whereas firefighters have given their lives and risked injury

to preserve the lives and protect the property of others;
2

•HJ 272 IH

Whereas the contributions and sacrifices of valiant firefighters often go unreported and are inadequately recognized by the public; and

Whereas the work of firefighters deserves the attention and

gratitude of all individuals in the United States: 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 October 29, 1993, is designated as ‘‘National Fire4 fighters Day’’, and the President of the United States is

5 authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling

6 upon the people of the United States to observe the day

7 with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARIA DELBOSQUE,

Plaintiff,

VS.

SAM’S EAST, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1953-G

)

)

)

ORDER

On October 28, 2022, the court ordered the defendant to file and serve an

amended notice of removal to address the court’s concern regarding the amount in

controversy. See generally Order (docket entry 16). The court cautioned that failure

to timely file and serve such an amended notice of removal would result in remand

to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas, without further notice. 

Id.

The defendant failed to comply with this court’s order to file an amended

notice of removal. Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the County

Court at Law No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas. The Clerk of Court shall mail a

certified copy of this order to the county clerk of Dallas County, Texas. 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:22-cv-01953-G Document 17 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 73
§ 1447(c).

SO ORDERED.

November 10, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01953-G Document 17 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 74