alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Atlanta Community Engagement 

Network (ACEN)

Rho Kappa Lambda Chapter 

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc ACLU of Georgia Interfaith Children’s Movement (ICM)

Our Coalition Partners

Has Your Student Received Suspension/Detention -

Is It Time for an Intervention?

Which behaviors are more likely to result in disciplinary action or in 

low grades? Students removed by suspension are often those who 

need to be in school the most. Parent involvement is key! Learn

how early interventions can keep your student on the right track. 

The workshops are free and designed to empower parents, care‐givers and community members with information 

and tools to be better advocates for children. Contact us to schedule a workshop for your group.

Understanding the School to Prison Pipeline

A presentation and panel discussion led by the co-chairs of 

Gwinnett STOPP which provides a more detailed view of the School

to Prison Pipeline (STPP) issue. The presentation includes details 

of the state, national and local data trends, interactive activities and 

audience questions. This workshop may be customized for your 

organization.

What Your Student/Parent Handbook Didn't Really Tell 

You ...reading between the lines

Highly interactive workshop designed to specifically to engage our 

community in understanding the links between student behavior, GCPS 

disciplinary policy, the loss of educational opportunity, and the 

juvenile/adult court system. 

Parent Leadership Institute (PLI)

A grassroots education advocacy training program for parents. PLI 

utilizes the University of Georgia’s Fanning Institute Community 

Leadership Program curriculum as a core foundation of the training 

layered with education advocacy and school discipline reform tools.

Project teams implement a school-community project in their immediate 

school cluster designed to impact a feeder into the School to Prison 

PLI is accepting applications Pipeline, ultimately improving the climate for learning in schools.

Educational Series
Calendar No. 354

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1303

AN ACT

To designate the Federal Building and United

Courthouse’’.S. Fisher Federal Building and United StatesStreet in Trenton, New Jersey, as the ‘‘ClarksonStates Courthouse located at 402 East State

JANUARY 28 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 354

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1303

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 5 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

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

Public Works

JANUARY 28 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Reported by Mr. BAUCUS, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 402 East State Street in Trenton, New

Jersey, as the ‘‘Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal Building and United States Courthouse

5 located at 402 East State Street in Trenton, New Jersey,

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clarkson S. Fisher

7 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.
2

HR 1303 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 Building and United States Courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clarkson

6 S. Fisher Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1309

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to the minimum

wage and overtime exemption for employees subject to certain leave policies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1993

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. PETRI) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating

to the minimum wage and overtime exemption for

employees subject to certain leave policies.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workplace Leave

5 Fairness Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LEAVE POLI7 CIES.

8 Section 13(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)) is amended

9 by adding before the semicolon at the end the following:

10 ‘‘and an employee shall not be disqualified for an exemp-
2

•HR 1309 IH

1 tion under this paragraph on the basis that such employee

2 is subject to reductions—

3 ‘‘(A) in accrued leave of any type, or

4 ‘‘(B) in pay because of an absence of the

5 employee and because—

6 ‘‘(i) such employee’s accrued leave was ex7 hausted, or

8 ‘‘(ii) such employee chose to be absent

9 without charging the employee’s accrued leave

10 regardless of the length of the leave or absence for which

11 such reductions are to be made’’.

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to an

14 employee (described in the amendment) before, on, and

15 after the date of enactment of this Act unless—

16 (1) an action was brought in a court involving

17 the application of section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor

18 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)) to the

19 employee; and

20 (2) a final judgment has been entered in the ac21 tion on or before the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                           664
<SECURITIES>                                   1,867
<RECEIVABLES>                                    986
<ALLOWANCES>                                      83
<INVENTORY>                                    1,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,156
<PP&E>                                         2,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            801
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                       64
<COMMON>                                          11
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,328
<SALES>                                        7,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,310
<CGS>                                          4,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  411
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              411
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     411
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .04




</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-335-X

§

TRAYLON ANTHONY STEVENS (1) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of 

Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of 

the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of 

service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is 

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and TRAYLON 

ANTHONY STEVENS (1) is hereby adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924((a)(2) – Possession 

of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling 

order.

 The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who 

set the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under 

§ 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination 

of whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) 

why the defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by 

clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the 

United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 3rd day of November, 2023.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00335-X Document 49 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,073,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      320
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,088,146
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,088,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,875,000
<COMMON>                                    17,065,136
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,851,990)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,192,628
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,310)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (80,310)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (80,310)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)



</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 466/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 466 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6418 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 466

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6418 November 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 466/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10510 – APOLLO MANAGEMENT / K1 GROUP) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 466/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10510 – APOLLO MANAGEMENT / K1 GROUP) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 466/02 | Euro exchange rates — 17 November 2021 | 2 |
| 2021/C 466/03 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 3 |
| 2021/C 466/04 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 466/02

Euro exchange rates — 17 November 2021

2

2021/C 466/03

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

3

2021/C 466/04

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office |
| 2021/C 466/05 | Notice of open competition | 5 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 466/06 | Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People’s Republic of China | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 466/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10532 – GIP / IFM / SYDNEY AIRPORT) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 18 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office

2021/C 466/05

Notice of open competition

5

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 466/06

Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People’s Republic of China

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 466/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10532 – GIP / IFM / SYDNEY AIRPORT) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

18

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STA'I'ES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

DELBERT GLENN ROGERS,

Pro-Se #02634254,

Plaintifl

MS. MARSHA McLANE, Et.4/.,

Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-130-C

ORDER

Before the Cou( is the Repo( and Recommendation (Docket Entry 24) ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Plaintiff s Motion lor Relief Requesting

Order Pending Action (Docket Entry 2 I ) is not properly before the Court and is premature. The

Report and Recommendation recommends that said Motion should be denied. Plaintiff filed an

Objection (Docket Entry 27), which the Court fully considered.

After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that

Plaintiff s objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an

independent review ofthe Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and finds no error. It

is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and

Plaintifls Motion for Relief Requesting Order Pending Action (Docket Entry 21) is DENIED.

SO ORDIIRITD.

Dated December 2022.

)

S C (is

xENI R D STATES DIS CT JUDGE

Def'endants.

4.r** Lf

Case 5:22-cv-00130-BQ Document 32 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 233
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Burton, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered May 18, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree (two counts), petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and possession of burglar’s tools and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 15 years to life on the burglary counts and to unconditional discharges on the other three counts, unanimously affirmed.

Police officers who responded to a call of a burglary in progress at 1359 Broadway, Manhattan, arrived at the address and eventually found defendant in an alleyway adjacent to the reported address. Defendant was found in possession of, *inter alia,*a crowbar, screwdrivers and flashlights, as well as a bag containing clothing labeled "Daisey Sportswear” (a clothes manufacturer with offices in 1359 Broadway). In addition, defendant had in his possession a hammer with traces of red clay on it that matched the clay bricks of the adjacent building at 1369 Broadway. Proprietors of offices in the two buildings gave testimony to the effect that their premises had been ransacked. In addition to this overwhelming evidence, defendant voluntarily gave oral and written signed statements attesting to the fact that he and an accomplice, Eddie D., burglarized the two buildings.

The overwhelming evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), was clearly sufficient to satisfy the elements of each of the crimes charged *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

The record also supports a finding that defendant, by his repeated refusals to accept the court’s invitations to appear at the suppression hearing, trial and sentencing, unambiguously indicated his defiance of the processes of law and amounted to a forfeiture of his right to be present at the material stages of his trial *(see, People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436, 444).

Defendant’s claim that trial counsel failed to provide him meaningful representation cannot be resolved on this record. Defendant’s remedy, if any, is a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 *(see, People v Jones,*55 NY2d 771).

Defendant’s arguments regarding the admissibility of his incriminating statements are raised for the first time on *348appeal and, therefore, are deemed waived *(see, People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013). We note the hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion on the original grounds raised, in light of the arresting officer’s uncontroverted testimony and the submission into evidence of defendant’s signed written statement acknowledging receipt of his *Miranda*warnings.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### WIDEMAN v. STATE.

No. 21740.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon appellant’s plea of guilty of the offense of possessing equipment for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and the waiver of a trial by jury, the court assessed his penalty at a fine of $100.

The record before us contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
#### Grace Endelson, Respondent, v Barry Endelson, Appellant.

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.), dated June 28, 1989, as awarded the plaintiff temporary exclusive use and possession of the marital residence, and directed him to pay temporary maintenance in the sum of $100 per week, monthly carrying charges on the marital residence in the sum of $14,558, and all reasonable and necessary uninsured medical expenses, hospital expenses, and dental expenses of the plaintiff and the parties’ infant son, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated September 15, 1989, as denied his application for a protective order, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion, *inter alia,*to, in effect, enforce certain provisions of the order dated June 28, 1989, to the extent of directing the defendant to reinstate "both the second and third mortgage encumbrances on the marital premises and pay all arrears, costs, penalties, and mortgagee’s attorney’s fees necessary for such reinstatement”.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

We find that the court properly granted the wife’s pendente lite request for exclusive occupancy of the marital residence *(see, Kristiansen v Kristiansen,*144 AD2d 441).

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, including the wife’s reasonable needs and the standard of living enjoyed by the parties, the other provisions of the court’s pendente lite orders were reasonable.

We have considered the husband’s remaining contentions *541and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JEFFREY OWENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMK DESOTO, INC., et al.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-1455-X

DISMISSAL ORDER

The Court treats the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice

[Doc. 17], as a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, and GRANTS it. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS that this entire action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, 

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party 

will bear its own fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2023.

_________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01455-X Document 18 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 50
Case 4:22-cr-00194-O Document 82 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 259
Case 4:22-cr-00194-O Document 82 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 260
EPA Reg. No. 71368-60 

Vol. 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STACEY EVERETT,

 Appellant,

v.

JAMIE EVERETT,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00035-CV

Appeal from the

158th District Court

of Denton County, Texas

(TC# 2009-20906-158)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and render judgment setting 

aside the clarifying order in regard to post-divorce maintenance.

We further order that Appellant recover from Appellee the appellate costs incurred by 

Appellant, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.