alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 4:15PM EDT: September 4, 2014

CONTACT: Treasury Public Affairs (202) 622-2960

FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

WASHINGTON – Secretary Lew today convened a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight 

Council (Council) in a closed session at the Treasury Department. 

 

During the meeting, the Council voted to make a proposed determination regarding a nonbank 

financial company under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Council’s vote was 

unanimous with one member voting present. Following the meeting, the Council provided the 

company with a detailed written explanation of the basis of the proposed determination, and the 

company now has 30 days to request a hearing before the Council to contest the proposed 

determination. After any hearing, the Council may make a final determination regarding the 

company. As noted in the Council’s interpretive guidance, the Council does not intend to 

publicly announce the name of any nonbank financial company that is under evaluation before a 

final determination is made. 

Following the Council’s direction to staff at its July 31 meeting, the Council also continued its 

discussion regarding its ongoing assessment of the asset management industry and received an 

update from staff on these efforts. 

In addition, the Council received an update from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on their recent review of the largest 

banks’ resolution plans. 

Finally, the Council received a presentation on and voted to approve its fiscal year 2015 budget, 

and voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on July 31. 

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved fiscal year 

2015 budget and meeting minutes is available at www.fsoc.gov. 

###
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 374 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 374

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
  Designating August 2, 1994, as ``National Neighborhood Crime Watch 
                                 Day''.

Whereas neighborhood crime is of continuing concern to the American people;
Whereas the fight against neighborhood crime requires people to work together in 
        cooperation with law enforcement officials;
Whereas neighborhood crime watch organizations are effective at promoting 
        awareness about, and the participation of volunteers in, crime 
        prevention activities at the local level;
Whereas neighborhood crime watch groups can contribute to the Nation's war on 
        drugs by helping to prevent their communities from becoming markets for 
        drug dealers; and
Whereas citizens across America will soon take part in a ``National Night Out'', 
        a unique crime prevention event which will demonstrate the importance 
        and effectiveness of community participation in crime prevention efforts 
        by having people spend the period from 9 to 10 o'clock postmeridian on 
        August 2, 1994, with their neighbors in front of their homes: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That August 2, 1994, is 
designated as ``National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe such day with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 374

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Designating August 2, 1994, as ``National Neighborhood Crime Watch 
                                 Day''.`
Aggregated Perspectives on Treasury Auction Sizes, April 24, 2017

Tranche

MEAN STD MEAN STD MEAN STD

Bills

4-week 25 5.1 61 6.2 14 4.0

13-week 23 4.4 45 4.9 8 3.9

26-week 21 2.5 41 3.5 7 3.0

52-week 16 3.8 30 3.7 5 1.9

Coupons

2-year 21 1.5 41 4.6 4 1.3

3-year 20 0.9 37 5.1 4 1.1

5-year 27 2.5 41 2.3 3 1.2

7-year 22 1.9 35 2.2 3 0.8

10-year 19 1.5 31 3.6 3 1.3

30-year 11 1.4 19 1.7 2 0.9

TIPS

5-year 12 1.2 20 2.8 2 0.7

10-year 10 1.2 17 2.0 2 0.7

30-year 6 0.7 11 1.7 2 0.7

FRN

2-year 11 1.1 19 1.8 3 1.1

The Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management (ODM) would like your perspectives on current Treasury auction sizes. This 

information would be used to help test ODM’s debt-issuance modeling assumptions, and does not reflect potential policy decisions. We 

appreciate your participation in a similar survey conducted in November 2016, and the aggregate response can be found online at 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/quarterly-refunding/Pages/dealer-agenda-survey.aspx.

Minimum Auction Size needed to 

maintain Benchmark Liquidity ($bil)

Maximum Auction Size that could be 

issued without causing significant 

yield deviations from fair value ($bil)

Maximum change (+/-) per quarter in 

auction size ($bil)

For each of the 14 securities that Treasury currently issues regularly, we would be interested in your views on the following matters:

1) All else equal, what is the minimum auction size, per auction, needed to maintain benchmark liquidity? Specifically,

what is the smallest auction size (weekly for bills, monthly for coupons) necessary to support “on-the-run” issue liquidity

in the secondary market?

2) All else equal, what is the maximum auction size, per auction, that could be issued without causing “significant yield

deviations” from current fair value? This fair value could, for example, be as measured by your spline, or other

analytical models.

3) All else equal, what is the maximum change in auction size (+/- X $billions) that can be implemented between two

consecutive new issuances without causing “significant yield deviations”?

The Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management (ODM) surveyed all 23 primary dealers on their firms’ perspectives on current 

Treasury auction sizes. The results presented below are “trimmed mean” and “trimmed standard deviation”. That is, the high and low 

values of all 23 responses for any maturity tranche are deleted before computing the average and standard deviation.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 310

Designating March 25, 1994, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1994

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. PORTER, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

MCCOLLUM, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. KOLBE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.

KING, Mr. NADLER, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.

RAHALL, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. SHAW, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. ARCHER, Mrs.

LOWEY, Mr. FILNER, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr.

MCNULTY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. COYNE, Mr.

KANJORSKI, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. SYNAR, Mr.

APPLEGATE, Mr. HANSEN, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. SMITH of

Iowa, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. DINGELL, Mr.

WOLF, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr.

LIPINSKI, Mr. EVANS, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. LEWIS of Florida, Mr. DIAZBALART, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. QUINN, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. EDWARDS

of California, Mr. QUILLEN, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, and Mr.

TRAFICANT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1994, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.
2

•HJ 310 IH

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested

in the people;

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States drew

heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of

ancient Greece in forming the representative democracy

of the United States;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond both

between the United States and Greece and between their

peoples;

Whereas March 25, 1994, marks the 173rd anniversary of

the beginning of the revolution that freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire and enabled the reestablishment of democracy in Greece; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate that anniversary with the Greek people and to reaffirm the democratic principles from which the United States and

Greece were born: 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 March 25, 1994, is designated as ‘‘Greek Independ4 ence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and

5 American Democracy’’, and the President is authorized

6 and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people

7 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

8 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT LEE BATES,

#2424885,

§

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02006-K (BT)

§

NFN WELLMAN, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions 

of the Court. By separate judgment, the plaintiff’s case will be DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed January 29th, 2024.

_______________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02006-K-BT Document 12 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 55
1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfa vors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/8/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________ WILLIAM A. SOJKA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) No. 95-1456 v. ) (D.C. No. 95-S-2545) ) (D. Colorado) CHERYL SMITH, ) ) Defendant-Appellee. )

_______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT 1

________________ Before PORFILIO, MCKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_______________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is an appeal following dismissal of a civil ri ghts complaint on the grounds of frivolousness and failu re to state a2

claim. Our examination of the pleadings and the re cord leads us to conclude the district court did not err. We AFFIRM for the grounds stated in the district court’s order of Oct ober 19, 1995. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
NUMBER 13-12-000340-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A.B.R., A.L.A., A.L.A., A.J.R., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 430th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, S.R.1, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 430th 

District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CW-034-11-J. On June 26, 

2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause 

was originally due on May 29, 2012, and that the deputy district clerk, Aida Villarreal, had 

 

1

In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure require the 

use of an alias to refer to a minor, Aand if necessary to protect the minor=s identity, to the minor=s parent or other 

family member.” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
2

notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's 

record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be 

taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). 

Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date 

of receipt of this Court’s notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court=s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

19th day of July, 2012.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion f iled February 21 , 2024. Not f ina l un til disposition o f timely f iled motion f or r ehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-0424 Lower T ribunal No

. 16

- 44

________________ 

### Phyllis Zyskind, et al. , Appellants,

vs. 

### Elena Koss, etc. , Appellee.

An Appeal from non-final order s from the Circu it Cour t for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Dia z , Judge. The Hall Law Firm , P.A. , and Adam S. Hall and Roarke Maxwell , for appellants. Jay M. Levy, P.A., and Jay M. Levy, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2

Affirmed. Shwartzberg v. Knobloch , 98 So. 3d 173, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 201 2) (“[A] nonresident corporate officer is subject to personal jurisdiction if the officer directed ‘fraud or other intentional misconduct’ at parties in the State of Florida.”) (citation omitted) ; see Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague , 721 So. 2d 358 , 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The court's sole inquiry and determination [is] whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred. ” ) ; Amersham Enter s. , Inc. v. Hakim

- Daccach , 333 So. 3d 289, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) ( “ Our Supreme Court has previously held that directing a conspiracy and tortious conduct toward Florida satisfies both specific long

- arm jurisdiction and the due process concerns implicated in a minimum conta cts analysis.”) (citing § 48.193(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. ) ; see also NHB Advisors, Inc. v. Czyzyk , 95 So. 3d 444, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[I]f a plaintiff has successfully alleged a cause of action for conspiracy among the defendants to commit tortious acts toward the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff has successfully alleged that any member of that c onspiracy committed tortious acts in Florida in furtherance of that conspiracy, then all of the conspirators are subject to the jurisdiction of Florida through its long

- arm statute.”).
Case 3:22-cv-01802-S-BH Document 37 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 400
#### HOWARD et al. v. ADAMS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 29, 1952.

Harkins & Harkins, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Ed King, Paintsville, Lyle K. Phelps, Lexington, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

In this automobile accident case appel-lee recovered a judgment of $1500 for damage to his car and the loss of its use.

Appellee’s automobile collided with a truck owned and operated by appellants *1003when he attempted to pass. He testified the truck pulled to its left without warning, when or just before he sounded his horn. The driver of the truck testified he changed his course to miss a dip in the road, without knowing appellee was passing at the time. Appellants contend they were entitled to a directed verdict, but the question of whose negligence proximately caused this accident was one for the jury. That issue was properly submitted.

Appellants next contend that witnesses who testified regarding the damage to appellee’s automobile were not expert repairmen and their testimony was incompetent. However, they testified with respect to the difference in the reasonable market value of the automobile before and after the accident, and as that was the issue involved, they were qualified to express their opinion.

The next two alleged errors are related. The court permitted appellee over objection to testify at length concerning negotiations with an insurance agent and appellants’ attorneys after the accident. The jury awarded appellee $750 for the loss of use of his automobile, and it is claimed this is excessive. Appellee attempts to justify this apparently incompetent evidence and the apparently excessive verdict on the ground that the negotiations with appellants’ representatives were the cause of the delay in having the vehicle repaired. We cannot accept this view.

 If appellee was entitled to recover for the loss of use, the period of this allowance is a reasonable time. His own unnecessary delay before attempting to have the repairs made cannot properly be computed, as he is under a duty to mitigate damages. Nor may time consumed in the negotiations for a settlement be computed as part of the reasonable time within which to effect the repairs. The evidence does not show that appellants or their representatives made any representations upon which appellee had a right to rely as justification for five months’ delay.

The testimony concerning negotiations was not only incompetent as being entirely irrelevant to the issues in the case, but was incompetent because it injected the subject of insurance. It should not have been admitted, and the allowance for loss of use, ’obviously based on this evidence, was excessive. For these reasons the judgment must be reversed.

The judgment is reversed for a new trial.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 52 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 52

   Affirming the legislative intent under the Social Security Act to 
provide for increases in old-age insurance benefits with due regard to 
                    increases in the cost of living.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

    Mr. Walker introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Affirming the legislative intent under the Social Security Act to 
provide for increases in old-age insurance benefits with due regard to 
                    increases in the cost of living.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,
That it is hereby affirmed that, as intended by the reforms to the Old 
Age Insurance Program of title II of the Social Security Act enacted in 
1977 and thereafter, individuals born after 1916 and receiving benefits 
under such program after the enactment of such reforms have received 
and continue to receive such benefits at rates not less than rates 
which are consistent with the policies intended at the time of the 
enactment of the cost-of-living adjustment provisions of such program 
in 1972, and benefits under such program continue to be determined 
under a benefit formula which increases benefits with due regard to 
increases in the cost of living.
```
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your na me. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued b y the Continuin g Airworthiness Division ( AARDG ) , National Aircraft Certification Branch, Trans p ort Canada, Ottawa, tele p hone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communicat ions Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1-800-305-2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
2 4-0022 ( 01-2005 ) 1/1 No

. CF-2013-01 Issue Date 22 January 2013



### Number: CF-2013-01 Subject: Crew Oxygen System - Oil Contamination Effective: 31 January 2013 Applicability: Bombardier Inc. aeroplanes: Model CL-600-2C10, serial numbers 10002 through 10265 Models CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24, serial numbers 15002 through 15153, 15156 and 15157 Compliance: Within 6600 hours air time or 36 m onths, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD. Background: It was found that traces of o il could be present in the cr ew oxygen system due to the use of incorrect pressure testing procedur es during manufacturing. Field sampling of nine aeroplanes have confirmed this condition. When the o xygen system is used, oil contaminants can cause an i gnition and result in a fire in the oxygen system. This AD mandates the cl eaning of the crew oxygen system to reduce oil contaminants to a safe level. Corrective Actions: Clean the crew oxygen system in accordanc e with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-35-012, Revision A, dated 26 November 2012, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada. Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 

### ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness Contact: Helen Tsai, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail ADs@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
Case 1:22-cr-00065-H-BU Document 42 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 76
Case 1:22-cr-00065-H-BU Document 42 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 77