alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HUGHES et al. v. GUNTER.

No. 3581.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Jan. 5, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1940.

*254Orgain, Carroll & Bell and John G. Tucker, all of Beaumont, and Turner, Rodgers, Winn & Sellers.. M. B. Solomon, and Will R. Wilson, Jr., all of Dallas, for appellants.

Chas. S. Pipkin, of Beaumont, and Gun-ter & Watson, of Port Arthur, for ap-pellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action by A. A. Gunter, appellee, against J. E. Hughes and the Peaslee-Gaulbert Corporation, appellants, for damages for libel, before us on appeal from the judgment of the lower court overruling appellants’ pleas of privilege to be sued in Dallas county. No point is made against the sufficiency of ap-pellee’s petition and his controverting affidavit.

On trial in the lower court, appellee offered proof only (a) on the nature of hist cause of action, and (b) on the county of his residence when his alleged cause of action arose, and when he filed his original petition. He offered no proof (c) in support of his alleged cause of action for libel. On authority of A. H. Belo Corporation v. Blanton, Tex.Sup., 129 S.W. 2d 619, and Blanton v. Garrett, Tex.Sup., 129 S.W.2d 623, he concedes error, and prays that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and that the cause be remanded for a new trial. Appellants pray that on remand the cause be transferred to Dallas county. Their proposition is that since appellee had an opportunity to introduce his proof and failed to avail himself of that right, and by his objections prevented appellants from introducing proof on the material allegations of his petition, he lost his right to try the case in Jefferson county. The case was tried on the theory, accepted as the law by the trial court, that appellee sustained his venue by the proof offered. We are satisfied that appellee tried his case in good faith and failed to introduce the necessary proof only through a misunderstanding of the law, and that for the same reason he objected to the evidence appellants proposed to offer. It is provided by Art. 1856, R.C.S.1925, that on reversal the cause of action shall be remanded “when it is necessary that some matter of fact be ascertained.” Under this article the cause should be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings; it should not be transferred to Dallas county under this order of remand.

Reversed and remanded.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1339

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide that the waiting

period for disability benefits shall not be applicable in the case of a

disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

Mr. SWIFT (for himself, Mrs. UNSOELD, Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. NEAL of North

Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide

that the waiting period for disability benefits shall not

be applicable in the case of a disabled individual suffering from a terminal illness.

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

3 That (a) the first sentence of section 223(a)(1) of the So4 cial Security Act is amended, in clause (ii) thereof—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ immediately after ‘‘but

6 only if’’, and

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘or (II) he has a terminal ill8 ness (as defined in subsection (e)),’’ immediately
2

HR 1339 IH

1 after ‘‘the first month in which he is under such

2 disability’’.

3 (b) Section 223 of such Act is further amended by

4 adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

5 ‘‘Definition of Terminal Illness

6 ‘‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘terminal ill7 ness’ means, in the case of any individual, a medically de8 terminable physical impairment which is expected to result

9 in the death of such individual within the next 12

10 months.’’.

11 SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall be

12 effective with respect to applications for disability insur13 ance benefits under section 223 of the Social Security Act

14 filed—

15 (1) in or after the month in which this Act is

16 enacted, or

17 (2) before the month in which this Act is en18 acted if—

19 (A) notice of the final decision of the Sec20 retary of Health and Human Services has not

21 been given to the applicant before such month,

22 or

23 (B) the notice referred to in paragraph (1)

24 has been so given before such month but a civil

25 action with respect to such final decision is
3

HR 1339 IH

1 commenced under section 205(g) of the Social

2 Security Act (whether before, in, or after such

3 month) and the decision in such civil action has

4 not become final before such month;

5 except that no monthly benefits under title II of the Social

6 Security Act shall be payable by reason of the amend7 ments made by this Act for any month before the month

8 in which this Act is enacted.

Æ
---

Exhibit 32.2

Principal Executive Officers Certification Pursuant To
Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of American Natural Energy
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steven P. Ensz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Steven P. Ensz

Steven P. Ensz Chief Financial Officer March 31,
2010

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip Glaser, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant admitted the shotgun killings of his estranged wife and her parents, which were motivated by his dissatisfaction with divorce negotiations, particularly the division of the proceeds of the marital residence. He contends on appeal that the court erred in finding that he was not entitled to the defense of extreme emotional disturbance with respect to the three counts of intentional murder. The two components to that defense are that (1) defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance and (2) there was "a reasonable explanation or excuse” for the disturbance, "the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be” (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). Even assuming that defendant met the first requirement, he failed to meet the second *(see, People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, 678, *cert denied*449 US 842).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
No. 95-3132

 

Orlando Briscoe, *

*

 Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

 v. * District of Missouri.

 *

James Anthony Gammon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

 Appellee. *

 

Submitted: February 16, 1996

Filed: March 12, 1996

 

Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

In 1990, Orlando Briscoe was convicted in state court in Missouri of

three felonies. He did not appeal, but he did petition for postconviction

relief in the Missouri courts. In State v. Briscoe, 847 S.W.2d 792 (Mo.

1993) (en banc), his petition for postconviction relief was denied.

Mr. Briscoe subsequently petitioned for habeas corpus relief in

federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied

Mr. Briscoe's petition in mid-1995; he appealed. We have read the briefs,

examined the exhibits, considered the district court record, and heard oral

argument by the parties. We
 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the

report and recommendations of the Honorable Lewis M. Blanton,

United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Missouri. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

-2-

discern no error of law in the district court record and therefore affirm

the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 39

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

 Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Hoyer, 
  Mr. Wolf, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. 
   Edwards of Maryland, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, and Mr. Kratovil) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR DC SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 5, 2009, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2009 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30390]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: Approximately 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2000, 
following a recess at the conclusion of the open meeting.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: November 22, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-30390 Filed 11-27-00; 9:47 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1354 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1354

    To make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
              available at a discount to certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2009

 Mr. Rehberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
              available at a discount to certain veterans.

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

SECTION 1. VETERANS EAGLE PASSPORT.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Eagle 
Parks Pass Act''.
    (b) Veterans Eagle Parks Pass.--Section 805(b) of division J of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (16 U.S.C. 6804(b); 118 Stat. 
3386), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Veterans discount.--The Secretary shall make the 
        National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available, 
        at a cost of $10, to any veteran who was separated from 
        military service under conditions other than dishonorable, if 
        the veteran provides proof of that status by presenting a 
        DD214. The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
        made available under this paragraph shall be valid for 1 year 
        from the date of issuance.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HANCOCK v. STATE.

No. 21384.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 15, 1941.

Leon Dean Lusk and Leo C. Brady, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to rape, punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception or statement of facts are found in the record. In this condition of the record nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1129 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1129

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an annual grant 
  to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2009

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an annual grant 
  to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans.

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

SECTION 1. IRON WORKING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR NATIVE AMERICANS.

    (a) In General.--To the extent funds are made available for this 
purpose, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, shall annually provide a grant to an eligible entity to 
provide an iron working training program for members of federally 
recognized Indian tribes. An eligible entity that receives a grant 
under this section shall provide a program that meets the requirements 
of subsection (b) and may require such other criteria of the program 
and participants of the program as the eligible entity considers 
appropriate to further the goals of the program.
    (b) Requirements.--A program funded by a grant under this section 
shall--
            (1) provide specialized training in iron working skills to 
        adult members of federally recognized Indian tribes;
            (2) provide classroom and on-the-job training; and
            (3) facilitate job placement for participants upon 
        successful completion of the requirements of the program.
    (c) Eligible Entity.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
section, an entity shall--
            (1) have proven experience in providing successful iron 
        working training programs to Native American populations; and
            (2) have the facilities necessary to carry out such a 
        program with a grant provided under this section.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2,285
<SECURITIES>                                   12,791
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,536
<PP&E>                                         244
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,646
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       65
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,295
<SALES>                                        1,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,658
<CGS>                                          1,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (211)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
Living Independently and in the Community: Implementation Lessons from the 

United States—Quick Reference Guide 

National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-272-2004 Voice 

202-272-2074 TTY 

202-272-2022 Fax 

Lex Frieden, Chairperson 

Publication date: August 2, 2005 

This paper provides examples of the implementation of U.S. disability policy pertaining 

to independent living. A more detailed description is provided in the attached policy 

paper. 

Best Practices 

The primary aim of the independent living movement is for people with disabilities to 

achieve the capacity to live in their homes and communities in accordance with their own 

wishes, and therefore “independently.” U.S. advocacy groups have focused on various 

“consumer driven supports,” which help facilitate living in the community. Some of 

these supports include, among other things, peer counseling, advocacy services, 

accessible transportation, training in independent living skills, wheelchair repair, housing 

referrals, and personal assistant referrals. 

Legislation & Federal Initiatives 

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public entities cannot discriminate 

against individuals with disabilities in the services they provide. In 1999, the U.S. 

Supreme Court, in Olmstead v. L.C., determined that the unjustified institutionalization of 

people with disabilities is a form of discrimination under the ADA.1 

Following the Olmstead decision, President George W. Bush asked federal agencies to 

promote community living for people by: (i) providing coordinated technical assistance 

to states through federal grants, information, and training; (ii) identifying specific barriers 

in federal law, regulations, policies and practices that inhibit community integration; and 

(iii) enforcing the rights of people with disabilities. Federal agencies replied in various 

ways. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), for example, issued 

guidance on developing state plans that would focus on placing individuals in integrated 

environments and establishing a waiting list to move people into community-based 

settings. DHHS has also provided federal grants in order to assist states in creating 

programs that support community living. 

1

 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 
Also, in response to Olmstead, President Bush launched the “New Freedom Initiative,” a 

national plan to remove existing barriers to community living. Some of the proposals in 

the initiative are to increase access to assistive technology, expand educational 

opportunities, increase the ability of people with disabilities to integrate into 

employment, and promote increased access to daily community living. 

Barriers 

Although the federal government has responded to the Olmstead decision, the National 

Council on Disability has found that obstacles still exist for individuals to live 

independently. Such barriers include lack of: affordable or accessible housing; qualified 

support staff; affordable and accessible transportation; adequate medical or dental care; 

jobs and job training; and residential and day services.