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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 12

To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to infringement of 
                               copyright.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Hughes  (for himself and Mr. Moorhead) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to infringement of 
                               copyright.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 501 of 
title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(f) A television broadcast station is an infringer of copyright 
and is subject to the remedies provided for in this chapter (other than 
section 506) if such station, without the express written consent of 
the copyright owner of a work broadcast by such station, authorizes the 
secondary transmission of such copyrighted work by a cable system or 
other multichannel video programming distributor.''.

                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

THOMAS E. BONNING, JR. , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2414

[ May 19, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Rosemarie Scher , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- CF

001313

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, Ass istant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 86 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 86

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
            for the unveiling of a bust of Sojourner Truth.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING OF SOJOURNER TRUTH 
              BUST.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on April 28, 2009, to unveil a 
bust of Sojourner Truth.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 22, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GLOBAL WATER TECHNOLOGIES' ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,751,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,451,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,169
<INVENTORY>                                    318,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,235,487
<PP&E>                                       1,055,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                 429,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,008,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,293,992
<BONDS>                                      1,137,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    250,100
<COMMON>                                         2,948
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,245,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,008,062
<SALES>                                     34,744,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,744,479
<CGS>                                       27,816,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,811,122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,766,878
<INCOME-TAX>                                   777,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            989,309
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (754,296)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   227,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.001
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30316]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of 
the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested 
parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 011677-002.
    Title: The United States Australasia Agreement.
    Parties: Australia-New Zealand Direct Line, CMA CGM SA, Contship 
Container Lines Limited, Columbus Line, P&O Nedlloyd Limited, Wallenius 
Wilhelmsen Lines AS.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment would exclude United States West 
Coast transshipment cargoes from the Agreement's trade participation 
share arrangements (``TPA''). It would also provide for 12-month share 
periods beginning each January First, increase allowable shares, 
provide for resignation from the TPA only at the end of a share period, 
and provide for a change in share revision negotiation procedures.

    Agreement No.: 011734.
    Title: Maersk Sealand/Great Western Pacific Slot Charter Agreement.
    Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk Sealand (``MSL'') Great Western 
Steamship Co.
    Synopsis: Under the proposed Agreement, Great Western would charter 
space aboard vessels operated by MSL in the trade between Busan, South 
Korea, and inland points via Busan, and the Port of Long Beach, 
California, and inland United States points via Long Beach. The 
Agreement will expire on June 30, 2001.

    Dated: November 22, 2000.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30316 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
NO. 07-07-0467-CR

NO. 07-07-0468-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 17, 2008

______________________________

TRAVIS MITCHELL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NOS. 55557-D & 55559-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following pleas of guilty, Appellant, Travis Mitchell, was convicted of delivery of a

controlled substance and sentenced to seventeen years confinement. Proceeding pro se,

Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging his convictions. The Trial Court’s Certification

and Defendant’s Right of Appeal filed in both cases reflect that the cases are plea-
2

bargained cases with no right of appeal and that Appellant waived his right of appeal. By

letter dated January 8, 2008, this Court notified Appellant that the certifications indicated

he had no right of appeal and invited him to either file amended certifications showing a

right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeals. Appellant was

notified that failure to do so might result in dismissal per Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Appellant timely filed a letter response to this Court’s inquiry. 

A review of Appellant’s response does not contradict the certifications filed by the

trial court. We conclude Appellant has not demonstrated why the appeals should not be

dismissed based on the certifications signed by the trial court.

Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### DURHAM v. STATE.

No. 19716.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 11, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1938.

Floyd Harry, of Farmersville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Appellant pleaded guilty. An inspector of the State Liquor Control Board testified that on the 23d of October, 1937, he bought a half pint of whisky from appellant.

It is shown in bill .of exception No. 2 that in his argument to the jury counsel for the State used language as follows: “It is unusual for a defendant not to waive a jury and try the case before the court, and then come in before a jury and plead guilty.” If the remarks of counsel were improper — and this is not conceded — we are unable to reach the conclusion that they were prejudicial. Not only did appellant enter a plea of guilty, but the State introduced proof conclusively showing that he sold whisky in a dry area. The jury assessed the minimum penalty of $100. We think the bill of exception fails to reflect error.

Bill of exception No. 4 recites that one of counsel' for the State in argument to the jury used language as follows: “If you assess the minimum punishment, you are making yourself an accomplice (referring to the defendant) to go back and commit the same crime.” The jury evidently disregarded the argument, as is evidenced by their action in assessing the minimum penalty. The bill is without merit.

The judgment is 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.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant earnestly insists that we erred in our original opinion in holding that the arguments complained of evidently did not prejudice the minds of the jury against him because they assessed his punishment at a fine of $100, the lowest monetary punishment which could be assessed. He argues very adroitly by taking the position that the jury could have assessed his punishment at confinement in the county jail for one minute; that consequently the argument was prejudicial. We cannot agree with him for two reasons: (1) We do not regard the argument complained of as of such inflammatory and prejudicial nature as would require a reversal; and (2) it is shown by the verdict of the jury that such argument did not have the effect complained of. They could have assessed his punishment at a fine of $1000 and confine! *107ment in the county jail for a period of one' year.

The motion for a rehearing is overruled.

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.
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Marlyn Tillman
Marlyn Tillman is the Co-Chair of the Gwinnett Parent Coalition to Dismantle the School to Prison Pipeline (Gwinnett SToPP). She also serves as the School to Prison Pipeline Director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. After moving to Georgia and seeing how her oldest son was targeted in school, Tillman took action and co-founded the Gwinnett SToPP in 2007. Gwinnett SToPP was formed to lead a parent-driven, community centered partnership approach to dismantling the school to prison pipeline in Gwinnett County. The coalition seeks to build and strengthen relationships within the community in two constructive ways. The first way is to increase public awareness of the injustice that all children face within the educational system as it relates to the pipeline and the judicial process. Secondly, by promoting policy changes through data accountability and fact-based incident reporting which serve to support and strengthen the dismantling of the school to prison pipeline in Gwinnett County. Tillman also serves on the Gwinnett County Human Relations Commission, the steering committee of the national Dignity in Schools Campaign, and the Gwinnett County Public Schools GEMS curriculum review committee.
  
Date Created: July 10, 2020
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            8542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    31627
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                      24545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 67092
<PP&E>                                           35966
<DEPRECIATION>                                   23925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   90729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29796
<BONDS>                                              8
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                       60832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     90729
<SALES>                                          93449
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 98467
<CGS>                                            40553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    40553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 13343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7480
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5277
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
        

</TABLE>
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 176 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that secondary schools should begin 

the school day no earlier than 9:00 in the morning. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2009 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. CARDOZA) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that secondary schools 

should begin the school day no earlier than 9:00 in 

the morning. 

Whereas scientific studies indicate that adolescents experience 

hormonal changes that keep them awake at night; 

Whereas most secondary schools begin classes at 7:30 in the 

morning or earlier; 

Whereas most teen crime occurs between 3:00 and 6:00 in 

the afternoon, and a later start to the school day would 

result in a later release of students at the end of the 

school day; 

Whereas adolescents who do not get enough sleep are more 

likely to be depressed, tardy, absent from school, obese, 

and engaged in other unhealthy behaviors; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 176 IH 

Whereas recent studies demonstrate a relationship between 

later school start times and reductions in car crashes involving adolescents; and 

Whereas many adolescents do not get enough sleep to realize 

their full academic potential: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Zzz’s to A’s Res5 olution’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BEGINNING OF A SECONDARY SCHOOL DAY. 

7 It is the sense of the Congress that secondary schools 

8 should begin the school day no earlier than 9:00 in the 

9 morning. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Christopher Crociata et al., Appellants, v Joseph Vasquez et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of the order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered August 29, 1989, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an assessment of damages.

It is undisputed that while the plaintiff Mario Crociata was stopped for a red light at an intersection, his automobile, in which his son, the plaintiff Christopher Crociata was a passenger, was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by the defendant Salvatore M. Coleca and driven by the defendant Joseph Vasquez while in the course of his employment with the defendant Domino’s Pizza. This court has stated that "[w]hen a rear-end collision occurs * * * such collision is sufficient to create a prima facie case of liability on the part of defendant and imposes a duty of explanation with respect to the operator of the offending vehicle * * * When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and * * * use reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle” *(Young v City of New York,*113 AD2d 833, 833-834).

The statements made by the defendant Vasquez in his examination before trial, to the effect that he was looking for *411a particular block on which to turn when he suddenly saw the plaintiffs stopped car which he slid into on the wet roadway, are insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence and raise a triable issue of fact as to liability *(see, Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361; *Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*162 AD2d 572; *Young v City of New York, supra).*Since the defendants failed to come forward with sufficient facts to raise a triable issue regarding a defense or with any evidence of negligent conduct on the part of the plaintiff driver, the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.