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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 271

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 4 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 6 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Committee discharged

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the month of November in each of calendar

years 1993 and 1994 as ‘‘National American Indian

Heritage Month’’.

Whereas American Indians were the original inhabitants of

the lands that now constitute the United States of

America;

Whereas American Indian Governments developed the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and separation

of powers in government, and these principles form the

foundation of the United States Government today;

Whereas American Indian societies have exhibited a respect

for the finiteness of natural resources through deep re-
2

HJ 271 CDS

spect for the earth, and these values continue to be widely held today;

Whereas American Indian people have served with valor in all

wars from Revolutionary War to the conflict in the Persian Gulf, often in a percentage well above their percentage in the population of the Nation as a whole;

Whereas American Indians have made distinct and important

contributions to America and the rest of the world in

many fields, including agriculture, medicine, music, language, and art;

Whereas American Indians deserve to be recognized for their

individual contributions to American society as artists,

sculptors, musicians, authors, poets, artisans, scientists,

and scholars;

Whereas designating the month of November in each of calendar years 1993 and 1994 to recognize the heritage and

the contributions to American society of American Indians will encourage self-esteem, pride, and self-awareness

in American Indians of all ages; and

Whereas November is traditionally the month when American

Indians have harvested their crops and is generally a

time of celebration and giving thanks: 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—

4 (1) the month of November in each of calendar

5 years 1993 and 1994 is designated as ‘‘National

6 American Indian Heritage Month’’; and
3

HJ 271 CDS

1 (2) the President is authorized and requested to

2 issue a proclamation in each of those years calling

3 on the people of the United States to observe such

4 month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives November 2,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Case 4:22-mj-00878-BJ Document 1 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
Case 4:22-mj-00878-BJ Document 1 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
Case 4:22-mj-00878-BJ Document 1 Filed 10/26/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
Case 4:22-mj-00878-BJ Document 1 Filed 10/26/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 424

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to voluntary school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1994

Mr. ISTOOK (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. DELAY, Mr.

MCNULTY, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. BILL BAKER of California, Mr. ROBERTS,

Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr.

HUTTO, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BUNNING,

Mr. ARMEY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BACHUS of Alabama, Mr.

KINGSTON, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. EMERSON, Mr.

GOODLATTE, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. PETE GEREN of

Texas, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. EWING, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr.

STEARNS, Mr. ORTON, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. HYDE, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. EVERETT) 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 relating to voluntary school prayer.

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 fol-
2

•HJ 424 IH

1 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con2 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

3 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

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

5 States within seven years after the date of its submission

6 for ratification:

7 ‘‘ARTICLE —

8 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

9 prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or

10 other public institutions. No person shall be required by

11 the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.

12 Neither the United States nor any State shall compose

13 the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms will meet in closed session on November 15-16, 2000, at the Institute for Defense Analyses, 1801 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1772.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will review fuel-efficient technologies, including new or improved fuels, engines, Alternative Fueled Vehicles, and other advanced technologies and assess their operational, logistical, cost, and environmental impacts for a range of practical implementation scenarios.

Due to critical mission requirements, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 101-6.1015(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part 101-6, which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting of the Task Force on November 15-16, 2000.

Persons interested in further information should call Commander Brian D. Hughes, USN, at (703) 695-4157.

      ( print page 70556)    
Dated: November 16, 2000. 

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-29932 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
# Official Journal C 250/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6225 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 250

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6225 July 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European ParliamentCouncil |
| 2019/C 250/01 | Joint Statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 adapting a number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European ParliamentCouncil

2019/C 250/01

Joint Statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 adapting a number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

1

---

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

EN
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANIEL A. VOGEL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:91-cr-00440-DCN) Submitted: October 6, 2006 Decided: November 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel A. Vogel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Daniel A. Vogel, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying Vogel’s petition for writ of e rror coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Vogel , No. 2:91-cr-00440-DCN (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Department of the Treasury

Vendor Outreach Sessions (VOS)

Fiscal Year 2015

Location: All VOS will be hosted at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 

Constitution Center, 400 – 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024, unless otherwise noted. 

DATE/TIME

9:00 am – noon Registration Begins: NOTES

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

(Rm. 1W-410)

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

at 12:00 Noon EST

December 2014 No VOS Session

 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

(Rm. 1W-410)

Monday, December 15, 2014

at 12:00 Noon EST

IT Firms only. Counselors: 

Treasury Bureau IT Program 

Managers

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

(Rm. 1W-220)

Thursday, January 15, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST

PRIME VOS: Counselors - 

Treasury Prime Contractors

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

(Rm. 1W-410)

Friday, February 13, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST Women Owned Small Businesses

April 2015 No VOS Session

Wednesday, May 20 , 2015

(Rm. 1W-410)

Monday, April 27, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

(Conference Room A)*

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST

HUBZone and SDVOSB firms only

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

(Rm. 1W-410)

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST

IT Firms only. Counselors: 

Treasury Bureau IT Program 

Managers

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

(Rm. 1W-410)

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

at 12:00 Noon EST

September 2015 No VOS Session 

The facility is Metro access via the Blue/Orange/Yellow/Green lines to L’Enfant Plaza. Exit L’Enfant 

Plaza at 7th & D Streets, SW. Parking is available in close proximity to the Constitution Center.

Unless otherwise noted, Bureau Small Business Specialists will serve as counselors.

Special Note: Please check for updates to the VOS schedule regularly.

*The June 10, 2015 VOS will be conducted at the US Mint, 801 – 9th Street NW, Washington, DC. The US 

Mint is Metro accessible: take the Red, Yellow or Green line to Gallery Place. Exit at 9th and G. Walk 1 block 

north to the building.
NUMBER 13-20-00005-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JENNIFER GAYLE JANVIER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Relator Jennifer Gayle Janvier filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above 

cause on January 3, 2020. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the 

trial court to transfer the underlying case to Victoria County, Texas based on mandatory 

venue provisions found in the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 155.201. 

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Justin Lee Todd, or any others whose 

interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of January, 2020.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1110 CA 16-00665 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT BY MAUDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC C/O WALGREENS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND/OR ASSESSOR OF THE CITY OF CORNING, CITY OF CORNING, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CORNING-PAINTED POST SCHOOL DISTRICT, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

STAVITSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC, NEW YORK CITY (BRUCE J. STAVITSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, ELMIRA (BRYAN J. MAGGS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
HARRIS BEACH, PLLC, SYRACUSE (TED H. WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered June 1, 2015 in proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7. The judgment, among other things, denied the petitions challenging the real property tax assessment for the 2009 and 2010 tax years. Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on October 24 and 31, 2016,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Aupperlee, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered May 8, 1989, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to adduce *562sufficient proof to establish that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The People’s principal witness, who was sitting in the defendant’s van during the entire incident, testified that he saw the defendant get out of the van with a shotgun in his hands and run to the front of the van, loading a round into the chamber as he ran. When he was directly in front of the van, he stopped, pointed the gun at the victim, who was only 15 to 20 feet away and had turned to face him, and fired. Clearly, any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim when he pointed the shotgun at him and fired it at close range *(see, People v Contes, supra; People v Almonte,*135 AD2d 824).

The defendant further contends that the court erred in allowing the victim, who had no recollection of the incident, to testify. We disagree. Under the facts of this case, it was not inappropriate to allow the victim to testify. In any event, in light of the overwhelming proof there is no significant probability that had the victim not taken the witness stand, the jury would have acquitted the defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 243).

The defendant’s contention that permitting the victim to testify in his Marine Corps dress uniform served to deprive him of a fair trial is also without merit *(see, People v Lloyd,*141 AD2d 671), especially since the court found that the uniform improved the victim’s over-all appearance and, therefore, gave the jury the impression that he was recovering from the serious physical injury he had sustained as a result of the crime.

The maximum sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Kooper, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29684]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-89-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Tariff Filing

November 15, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 9, 2000, Wyoming Interstate Company, 
Ltd. (WIC), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 2, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 4C to be effective 
January 1, 2001.
    WIC states the purpose of this filing is to permit WIC to collect 
Gas Research Institute (GRI) charges associated with its transportation 
pursuant to the Commission's order issued September 19, 2000 in Docket 
No. RP00-313-000.
    WIC further states that copies of this filing have been served on 
WIC's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29684 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WOODFORD v. HALL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1953.

J. Smith Hays, Sr., J. Smith Hays, Jr., and William Hays, Winchester, for appellant.

M. C. Redwine, Sr., and M. C. Redwine, Jr., Winchester, for appellee.

MOREMEN, Justice.

The appellee, James G. Hall, recovered damages in the sum of $600 against the appellant, L. C. Woodford, resulting from injury, during the growing season of the year 1951, to appellee’s corn and tobacco crop by hogs belonging to appellant which he had permitted to run at large and enter upon the premises of appellee.

On this appeal, appellant insists that the owner of cattle is not required to restrain them from unenclosed lands and that before damages may be recovered because of trespassing cattle, a landowner must construct a lawful fence.

A lawful fence is defined by subsection (1) of KRS 256.010 as “A strong and sound fence, four feet high, so close that cattle cannot creep through * *

Appellant cites Muir v. Thixton, Millett & Co., 119 Ky. 753, 78 S.W. 466 and Adams Bros. v. Clark, 189 Ky. 279, 224 S.W. 1046, 14 A.L.R. 738, as authority for the rule that the owner of domestic animals is not bound to restrain them, but may lawfully permit them to run at large and, in the absence of a “lawful” fence surrounding the property of the landowner which has been invaded by the cattle, no recovery may be had.

This argument overlooks the fact that the General Assembly of 1950 passed an act which became effective June 15, 1950, and which has been codified as KRS 259.210. It reads in part as follows:

> *903“(1) No person shall permit any cattle owned by him or under his control or in his custody, to run at large. “(2) If any damage is committed by cattle permitted to run at large, the owner of the cattle shall be liable for all damages, whether the place where the damages occurred is enclosed by *lawful*fence or not. * * * ”

The term “cattle” includes hogs of any age or sex. Subsection (S) of KRS 446.010.

The trial court properly overruled the demurrer to the petition and the motion for a directed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC, d/b/a AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF 

FLORIDA, a/a/o BIYAGAMAGE PERERA,

Appellant,

v.

CYPRESS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-782

[December 9, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mardi Levey Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

062020SC009953AXXXCE.

Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Steven G. Schwartz and Chad M. Weatherstone of Schwartz Law Group, 

Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.