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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 321

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing

an item veto in appropriations bills and an item veto of contract authority

or taxation changes in any other bill.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1994

Mr. ZIMMER 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 allowing an item veto in appropriations bills and

an item veto of contract authority or taxation changes

in any other bill.

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 321 IH

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

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘The President shall have the power to disapprove

6 in whole or in part any appropriation, any authority for

7 the United States to enter into a contract, or any change

8 in the rate or incidence of taxation on any special class

9 of taxpayers and approve any other provision in the same

10 bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate

11 the appropriations, contract authority, or tax provisions

12 disapproved, and shall return a copy of such disapproved

13 appropriations, contract authority, or tax provisions, with

14 his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have

15 originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had

16 as in the case of other bills disapproved by the President.’’.

Æ
KYLE GRAY
,
Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2232

Opinion filed August 16, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Kyle Gray, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIA M.

Petitioner is granted a belated appeal of the January 14, 2016

, order denying

motion to correct illegal sentence in Gadsden County Circuit Court case number 2007

-

CFA

- 00573. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be

prov ided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
# Official Journal L 141/30 A

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 141 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4730 April 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 141

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4730 April 2004

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers | 18 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers

18

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STEVEN JERMONTE CURETON, a/k/a Rollo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14; 3:11-cv-00486-FDW)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Jermonte Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; 

Dana Owen Washington, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Jermonte Cureton seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Cureton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Gilbert, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.), rendered March 24, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested for selling cocaine to an undercover detective. At trial, on the People’s direct case, the detective testified that he was frisked by the defendant before he purchased the narcotics. He was also permitted to testify, over objection by the defendant, that approximately two weeks prior to the arrest he had seen the defendant at the same location for approximately two minutes. On redirect examination, the detective stated, over defense counsel’s objection, that the defendant had frisked him on "two occasions”. This redirect testimony, taken together with the testimony given on direct, would suggest an earlier narcotics transaction, and thus amounted to evidence of an uncharged crime.

However, we find that the challenged redirect testimony was properly admitted because it was in response to the defense counsel’s cross-examination *(see, People v Melendez, 55*NY2d 445, 451; *People v Peoples,*143 AD2d 780, 781). Additionally, the challenged testimony was admissible as probative on the issue of identification.

The defendant’s remaining claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### CAMPBELL v. STATE.

No. 21834.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1942.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of theft of two head of cattle, and his punishment assessed at fwo years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERRELL DIXON, §

#4157-21, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1941-M

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 443RD §

DISTRICT COURT, and CINDY §

ERMATINGER, 443RD DISTRICT §

COURT, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a 

Recommendation in this case. Objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

de novo those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court 

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-01941-M-BN Document 8 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 37
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 361 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 361

  To designate the year of 1995 as the ``Year of the American Flag''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To designate the year of 1995 as the ``Year of the American Flag''.

Whereas the flag of the United States of America is the symbol of our Nation, to 
        which our Pledge of Allegiance is directed;
Whereas that flag unites all Americans across divisions of region, politics, 
        race, or religion;
Whereas millions of American men and women have fought under that flag to defend 
        their country and to advance the cause of human freedom all over the 
        world; and
Whereas the year 1995 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the 
        Second World War, in which that flag became the banner of hope and 
        liberation for all mankind: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of 
Congress that the President is authorized to proclaim 1995 as the 
``Year of the American Flag''; and that all Americans are encouraged to 
display the flag in appropriate ways at home, in places of work, and in 
schools; and that the history and symbolism of the flag should be 
taught in all schools as a means of conveying to young Americans the 
ideals which it has always represented; and that the Year of the Flag 
should be the occasion for special observances at the local, State, and 
national level to foster both greater respect for our national banner 
and greater patriotism on the part of all those over whom it waves.

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51363 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LASARO SANTOYO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(2:05-CR-59-ALL)

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Lasaro Santoyo-Garcia pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He now appeals his sentence, which was imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), asserting that it was unreasonable, because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).2

The record shows that the district court fulfilled its duty to consider all of the § 3553 factors and that the court sentenced Santoyo-Garcia to 41 months of imprisonment, the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005) . This sentence is within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no indication that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 519. Santoyo-Garcia also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and ( 2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Santoyo-Garcia’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Santoyo-Garcia contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments because Almendarez-Torres remains binding Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct . 298 (2005). Santoyo-Garcia properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, raising it here only to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED.
SIGTARP 4.1 Table

(values in $millions) O&M O&M O&M

Agency Total Agency Total Agency Total Percent

Capital Investments Total 4.26 4.26 4.06 4.06 4.06 4.06 0

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

IT Total 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

non-IT Total 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0

SIGTARP non-IT Total 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0

non-IT Total 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0

DO non-IT Investments

SIGTARP Equipment 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0

SIGTARP non-Major IT Total 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

non-Major IT sub-total 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

IT Total 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

SIGTARP non-Major IT Investments

SIGTARP Audit/Investigations 4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

015-05-0133 Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program

4.2 4.2 4 4 4 4 0

SIGTARP non-IT Investments

FY 2013 (Estimated Actuals) FY 2014 (Estimated Operating Level) FY 2015 (President's Budget)

Total Total Total Change from 

FY 2014 to 

FY 2015

Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DEMETRIUS MCGEE,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-cv-0892-P

CITY OF FORT WORTH

POLICE DEP’T, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, 

and a Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 5. No objections were filed, 

and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. The 

District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District 

Judge finds that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of 

the Court. 

The Court therefore ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of November 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00892-P Document 7 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 17
#### Ex parte Ted SANFORD.

No. 21885.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1942.

Combs & Dixie, King C. Haynie, and Ceorge Goodenow, all of Houston, for appellant.

Sewall Myer and Frank Campbell Four-my, both of Houston, and Joseph A. Pad-way and' Herbert S. Thatcher, both of Washington, D. C., amicus curiae.

Terrell, Davis, Hall & Clemens and Leroy Jeffers, all of San Antonio, Rawlings & Sayers, of Fort Worth, and Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, amicus curiae, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Harris County charged with having violated Art. 1621b of the Penal Code, as amended by Chapter 100, Acts of the 47th Legislature, Regular Session, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1621b.

A capias was issued by the Clerk of the Criminal District Court of said county and relator was taken into the custody of the sheriff and confined. He immediately applied to the Hon. Langston King, Judge of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty because the law which he was charged with having violated was in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as well as Sections 3, 8, 10, 13, 19 and 27 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St. and Article 6 of the State Penal Code. Upon a hearing of the habeas corpus he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, from which judgment he appealed to this court.

It is apparent from the above statement that this case involves the same questions as that of Ex parte Jack Frye, Tex.Cr.App,, 156 S.W.2d 531, this day decided. The disposition which we have made of that case also disposes of this one. Therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate what we have said’ in that case. A mere reference thereto is sufficient.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be and the same is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant insists that we erred in the disposition made of the case originally. He presents nothing not discussed in our original opinion. We have again reviewed the case in the light of the contentions made by appellant, and are unable to agree with him.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

*900■PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
# Coupon PDO4-2000-Sep 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 278 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 278

 Designating the week of March 21 through 27, 1994, as ``National Long-
                    Term Care Administrators Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 1993

  Mr. Pete Geren of Texas introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the week of March 21 through 27, 1994, as ``National Long-
                    Term Care Administrators Week''.

Whereas long-term care administrators manage the day-to-day operations of over 
        20,000 nursing homes in the United States; and
Whereas over 1,800,000 elderly and chronically ill individuals place their well-
        being in the hands of the administrators and the staff they supervise: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That March 21 through 27, 
1994, is designated as ``National Long-Term Care Administrators Week'', 
and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to 
observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```