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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1314 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1314

      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2009

  Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California (for herself, Mr. Bishop of New 
 York, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. George Miller of 
  California, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Israel, Mr. Higgins, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. 
Sherman, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Berman, Mrs. 
   Davis of California, Mr. Filner, Ms. Giffords, and Mr. Grijalva) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 
              CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

    Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged with or'' 
before ``convicted''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDTAED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PROFESSIONALS GROUP,
INC. (FORMERLY PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT GROUP)  AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED.  (IN THOUSANDS)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           682,773
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       4,493
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      426
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 704,543
<CASH>                                           3,079
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 364
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 879,332
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                529,213
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             59,010
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  26,058
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           10,094
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,624
<OTHER-SE>                                     211,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   879,332
<PREMIUMS>                                     113,546
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             29,172
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               4,549
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   5,723
<BENEFITS>                                     139,686
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            30,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,913)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,136)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 489,207
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            132,194
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                7,062
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              17,025
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                83,202
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                529,213
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered November 23 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00984
- CV SHERIN THAWER, Appellant
V. COMMISSION FOR LAWYE R DISCIPLINE, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 09242 

### O RDER
T he reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 17, 2015, we notified the official court reporter for the 134th Judicial Court that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we have not received any response. This appeal cannot proceed until the issue of the reporter’s record is resolved. Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Vielica Dobbins to file, within FIFTE EN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not requested the record.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations and is qualified in its entirety to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                          JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                10,694
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         27,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           16,209<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      45,921
<PP&E>                                                94,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        148,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 24,807
<BONDS>                                               75,969<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              80
<OTHER-SE>                                            47,895<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          148,751
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      97,676
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      89,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      (61)<F4>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       5,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,979
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   3,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                          3,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.39
<FN>

<F1>Includes the following assets: prepaid expenses and other of $6,086,
deferred income taxes--current of $1,580, deferred income taxes--long-term of
$376, restricted cash of $3,827, investment in limited partnership of $193, and
intangible assets, net of $4,147.
<F2>Includes the following long-term liabilities: deferred income of $2,763,
capital lease obligation of $53,090, and long-term debt of $20,116.
<F3>Includes the following equity accounts: additional paid-in capital of
$48,340 and accumulated deficit of $(445).
<F4>Includes loss on investment in limited partnership of $61.

                                      -18-
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### College Point Associates, Respondent, v Schorr Brothers Development Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Schorr Brothers Development Corp., Seymour Schorr, Theodore Schorr and Harold Schorr appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated May 9, 1989, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Schorr Brothers Development Corp. (hereinafter Schorr) argues that it executed the subject mortgage, upon which it later defaulted, under economic duress, only to avoid litigating a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiff. Schorr alleges that the substantial delay caused by the litigation would have resulted in the loss of an $18,000,000 mortgage commitment from the Home Savings Bank.

Even assuming that the litigation instituted by the plaintiff was wrongful, the appellants have not presented sufficient evidentiary proof to establish economic duress. The appellants offered no proof to establish that they made any attempt to extend the mortgage commitment or seek its equivalent else*597where *(see, Austin Instrument v Loral Corp.,*29 NY2d 124). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Sylvia Schock et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 73012.)

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Blinder, J.), dated May 1, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the claim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The claimant Sylvia Schock was allegedly caused to fall on a raised portion of the sidewalk leading from Commonwealth Boulevard to the entrance of the Queens Children’s Psychiatric Center, a State-owned facility. Thereafter, the claimants brought this claim against the State. After a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim for failure to establish that the sidewalk was owned by the State. The court’s written decision was based upon factual conclusions arrived at by weighing all the evidence. This court will not disturb the Court of Claims determination unless it was against the weight of the evidence *(see, Ahnert v State of New York,*127 AD2d 927), and due deference must be accorded the Trial Judge’s determination *(see, Cordts v State of New York,*125 AD2d 746, 750). The only evidence produced by the claimants as to the ownership of the sidewalk was circumstantial and inconclusive. Therefore, the court’s determination should not be disturbed. Mangano, P. J., Fiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### SMITH v. SCHOELLKOPF.

No. 11587.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

July 15, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1933.

Linden & Linden, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Locke, Locke, Stroud & Randolph, of Dallas, for appellee.

JONES, Chief Justice.

On a former day of this term, the motion of appellee, Hugo W. Schoellkopf, to' affirm this cause on certificate, was overruled without a written opinion, and appellee has filed a motion for rehearing, seeking to have the former, order set aside, and, in lieu thereof, to enter an order affirming the cause on certificate; and, in the event the court cannot grant such relief, an alternate motion, to withhold the order overruling the motion for rehearing, and to certify the question involved to the Supreme Court.

The motion to affirm on certificate was overruled, on the authority of Harding et al. v. City of Raymondville (Tex. Com. App.) 58 S.W.(2d) 55. The cited ease clearly distinguishes this case from the case of Welch v. Weiss, 99 Tex. 356, 90 S. W. 160, the case relied upon by appellee. The facts of the instant case, and of Harding et al. v. City of Raymondville, supra, are similar in all respects, except the delay in the filing of the record in the higher court in the instant case is less than in the reported ease. The reported case clearly announces the rule that, in cases similar to the instant case, where appellant has recovered nothing in the suit, and there is shown no undue delay in prosecuting the writ of error, instead of the appeal, a motion to affirm on certificate will not lie, if the record is on file in the Court of Civil Appeals when the motion to affirm is filed, and both appeals are returnable to the same term of the Court of Civil Appeals. The case of Hawkeye Securities Ins. Co. v. Cashion (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 664, approved on this question by the opinion in Harding et al. v. City of Raymondville, supra, is also cited as additional authority.

The motion for rehearing and the motion to certify to the Supreme Court are overruled.

Overruled.
#### CHUMBLEY v. STATE.

No. 20498.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Ed Hoover, Jr., of Canadian, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for sale of intoxicating liquor in dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. It appears from a motion filed by appellant, duly verified as required by law, that he prepared a statement of the facts and submitted the same to the county attorney for his approval. The county attorney declined to agree that the same was a full, fair and complete statement in narrative form of the facts proved upon the trial, and promised to prepare one, but failed to do so. Appellant acting through his attorney advised the court of the situation and requested the county judge (who presided at the trial) to prepare and file a statement of facts. He agreed to do so within the time allotted by law but failed.

From the entire record, it is apparent to us that appellant used all the necessary diligence to have a statement -of the facts filed in time, and that he has been deprived of such statement through no fault of his own or that of his attorney. He asserts in his motion that he made some fifteen separate requests of the trial judge to prepare the statement, and that on each occasion he was promised that the same would be ready in sufficient time to be filed.

Every person who takes an appeal 'from a conviction of the county or district court over which this court has been given jurisdiction is legally entitled •to have his cause reviewed. To deprive him of a statement of the facts is tantamount to a denial of the right of review of his case by this Court guaranteed to him by law. See Gilley v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 13 S.W.2d 706, 707, 708 ; 4 Tex.Juris.Sec. 312, p. 450; McHenry v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 542, 61 S.W. 311; Bingham v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 453, 37 S.W. 753, 755; Gholston v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 615, 113 S.W.2d 1233. Because of this deprivation, we feel impelled by a consciousness of right and justice to reverse and remand the cause.

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.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Orion  Acquisition  Corp. II (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.


August 19, 2003                        By: /s/ Christopher A. Marlett
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Christopher A. Marlett
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 190 

AN ACT 

To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of nonapplication of 

No-Load Mode energy efficiency standards to certain 

security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 190 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Power And Security 

3 Systems (PASS) Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD 

5 MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD TO 

6 CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM 

7 OR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. 

8 (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 

9 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amend10 ed— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ each place it appears 

12 and inserting ‘‘2021’’; and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

14 (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and 

15 Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amend16 ed— 

17 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘July 1, 2017,’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘the effective date of the amendment 

19 under subparagraph (D)(ii)’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(iv) TREATMENT IN RULE.—In the 

22 rule under subparagraph (D)(ii) and sub23 sequent amendments the Secretary may 

24 treat some or all external power supplies 

25 designed to be connected to a security or 

26 life safety alarm or surveillance system as 
3 

†S 190 ES

1 a separate product class or may extend the 

2 nonapplication under clause (ii).’’. 

Passed the Senate August 1, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 190 

AN ACT 

To provide for consideration of the extension under 

or surveillance systems, and for other purposes. standards to certain security or life safety alarms application of No-Load Mode energy efficiency the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of non-
#### W. O. BELL v. STATE.

No. 15166.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 2, 1932.

P. B. Ward, of Cleburne, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, X

Conviction is for driving an automobile upon the public highway while appellant was intoxicated.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condi-( tion no questions as to any proceedings upon the trial are presented for review. Howevei we observe that the sentence directs that aj pellant shall be confined in the penitential *303for a term of one year. It does not take account of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Raw, as provided in article 775, C. C. P. The punishment provided in article 802, P. C., for driving an automobile upon the public highway while the driver is intoxicated may he confinement in the penitentiary for not more than two years. The punishment assessed in the present case was one year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

The statute provides no minimum time of confinement in the penitentiary for such offense, and therefore the sentence should have directed his confinement in said institution for a time not exceeding one year.

The sentence will be reformed to give such effect thereto, and, as reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PETER JONES, ET AL., §

PLAINTIFFS, §

§

V. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-2190-M-BK

§

CRYSTAL PAYTON, 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. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-02190-M-BK Document 11 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1883 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a final rule to provide 

for the screening, testing, and treatment for sleep disorders of individuals 

operating commercial vehicles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a 

final rule to provide for the screening, testing, and treatment for sleep disorders of individuals operating commercial vehicles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RULEMAKING REQUIREMENT. 

4 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

5 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Motor Car6 rier Safety Administration and the Administrator of the 

7 Federal Railroad Administration shall complete the rule8 making process and publish a final rule regarding the adVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:13 Sep 30, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1883.IS S1883

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1883 IS

1 vance notice of proposed rulemaking issued on March 10, 

2 2016, entitled ‘‘Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel 

3 for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea.’’ (81 

4 Fed. Reg. 12642). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Comments on Draft General Permit 

Jimmy Bush 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

01/25/2010 06:08 PM 

Show Details 

Jack, 

 

Attached are some comments we had on the draft general permit document. We really found the 

meeting in Dallas last week to be very fruitful and productive. Much of the discussion covered some of 

the same questions we had, so we refrained from re-plowing that ground. Maybe the comments we are 

sending will be of some value going forward. 

 

Thanks for the opportunity to participate and we were glad you were able to have the meeting in our 

State. 

 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

 

Jimmy Bush 

Assistant Commissioner for Pesticides 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 12847 

Austin, TX 78711 

(512) 463-7504 

Fax (888)216-9834 

jimmy.bush@TexasAgriculture.gov 

 

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htm 5/13/2010