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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 213 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 145
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 213

                          [Report No. 115-108]

  To designate the wilderness within the Lake Clark National Park and 
 Preserve in the State of Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2017

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             June 14, 2017

              Reported by Ms. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the wilderness within the Lake Clark National Park and 
 Preserve in the State of Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF JAY S. HAMMOND WILDERNESS AREA.

    (a) Designation.--The approximately 2,600,000 acres of National 
Wilderness Preservation System land located within the Lake Clark 
National Park and Preserve designated by section 201(e)(7)(a) of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
410hh(e)(7)(a)) shall be known and designated as the ``Jay S. Hammond 
Wilderness Area''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the wilderness area 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area''.
                                                       Calendar No. 145

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 213

                          [Report No. 115-108]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate the wilderness within the Lake Clark National Park and 
 Preserve in the State of Alaska as the Jay S. Hammond Wilderness Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 14, 2017

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>
                       Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 which register shares of your Common Stock issued under the Amended
and Restated Employee Stock Option Plan and the 1992 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., of our reports dated
November 19, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Genesis
Health Ventures, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1997 and 1996 and
the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30,
1997 and the related schedule, which reports appear in the September 30, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.

                                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 26, 1997
#### BRADLEY v. STATE.

No. 19970.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1938.

W. S. Barron aiid John M. Barron, Jr., both of Bryan, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of turkeys; the punishment, a fine of $20.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCILA STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000,
AND THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011991
<NAME> SUSA PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,330
<PP&E>                                       1,656,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,748,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,380
<BONDS>                                        821,053
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     839,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,748,392
<SALES>                                         58,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,886
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   595<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,584
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,678
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDED IN OTHER EXPENSES ARE MINORITY INTEREST EXPENSE AND GAIN/(LOSS) ON
EXCHANGE OF SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00055-CV

SETH BOOKOUT, LESLYE ROMERO,

AND RYAN GALLAGHER, Appellants

V.

JONATHAN SHELLEY AND STEDFAST 

BAPTIST CHURCH, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 141st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (141-329494-21)

November 23, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and Appellants’

argument—raised for the first time on appeal—that the trial court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

For the reasons set forth in our memorandum opinion of even date herewith,

this court holds that Appellants’ first issue pertaining to the ecclesiastical abstention

doctrine should be sustained in part and overruled in part. Accordingly, it is ordered

that the trial court may properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case; 

provided, however, that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine deprives the trial court 
of subject matter jurisdiction to hear defamation claims predicated on the following: 

(1) any of Seth Bookout’s statements referring to Stedfast Baptist Church as a “cult” 

or to Pastor Jonathan Shelley as a “cult leader” and (2) any of Bookout’s statements 

referring to Shelley as a “sodomite” or similar statements by Bookout that according 

to Shelley “suggest that [Shelley] engage[s] in sexual activities that are condemned by 

the doctrines of [his] [c]hurch.”

This court further holds that there was no error in the trial court’s order

denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, it is ordered that the trial court’s 

order is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Bookout, Leslye Romero, and Ryan 

Gallagher shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel 

 Justice Dabney Bassel
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 14, 2021

NO. 03-19-00478-CR

Sisto Quiroz, III, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgments. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30993

Summary Calendar

BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS HOLDING, INC.; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES, LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants

versus

PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. 2:04-CV-1150)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

Dayco Products, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of Parker-Hannifin Corp. We affirm.

Parker Hannifin argues that Dayco is collaterally estopped from arguing that

Parker-Hannifin is liable for indemnification regarding the Enviroflex hose claims under

the Asset Purchase Agreement. We agree.

This court has held that collateral estoppel applies when, in the initial litigation,

(1) 

the issue at stake in the pending litigation is the same, (2) the issue was actually litigated,

and (3) the determination of the issue in the initial litigation was a necessary part of the

judgment. Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005). In ParkerHannifin Corp. v. Dayco Products, LLC, No. 05-3518 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2006), the Sixth

Circuit affirmed a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio finding that the identical Asset Purchase Agreement did not require ParkerHannifin to indemnify Dayco for claims concerning Enviroflex hoses. All of the

collateral estoppel elements have been met here. Dayco argues that the Sixth Circuit did

not address the following issues: (1) the effect of the “TCI Litigation” clause in the Asset

Purchase Agreement, and (2) the ambiguity created by the Asset Purchase Agreement’s
3

use of the word “occurrences.” The United States District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio considered these issues and found in favor of Parker-Hannifin. Parker-Hannifin

Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC, No. 1:04-CV-897 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2005). The Sixth

Circuit affirmed. Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC, No. 05-3518 (6th Cir.

Feb. 24, 2006). Accordingly, Dayco has not raised issues that were not litigated

previously. 

In addition, all elements for application of res judicata have been satisfied. The

prior decision was between the same parties, judgment was rendered by a court of

competent jurisdiction, the judgment was final and on the merits, and the plaintiff raises

the same cause of action. Russell v. SunAmerica Secs., Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th

Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
#### LETTERMAN v. STATE.

No. 15282.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1932.

Lackey & Lackey, of Stinnett, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for possessing intoxicating liquor for the* purpose of sale; punishment being one year in the penitentiary. The record contains neither- statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition, nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT E. CARUSO,

Plaintiff

,

STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER
,

Appellant

, sub nom.

v.

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 1933, a legislatively created Washington association, State Bar Act (WSBA 1933); et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35557

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00003

- RSM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Kerr Eugster, attorney for plaintiff Robert E. Caruso

, appeals p ro se

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without or al argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35557

from the dist rict court’s order imposing pre

- filing restriction s on Eugster as a

vexatious litigant . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. , 500 F.3d 1047, 1056

(9th Cir . 2007). We vacate and remand.

The district court gave Eugster notice and an opportunity to be heard,

created an adequate record for review, and made substantive findings as to the

frivolous or harassing nature of Eugster’s prior action s. However, the district

court’s order is not narrowly tailored to Eugster’s abuses because it imposes pre

filing restrictions on lawsui ts “ against the WSBA, its employees, or agents” and

facial challenges to “Washington State’s attorney bar system

, ” with out limiting the

types of claims or challenges to those that Eugster had been filing vexatiously

. See

Ringgold

– Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles , 761 F.3d 1057, 1061

- 67 (9th Cir.

2014) (discussing procedural and substantive standards for a federal pre

- fil ing

order based on a vexatious litigant determination ). We vacate entry of the pre

filing order and remand for the district court to enter a pre

- filing order that is

narrowly tailored to the claims that Eugster has previously brought

. We do not consider the district court’s order denying disqualification of

Judge Martinez because the order is outside the scope of this appeal. See Fed. R.

App. P. 3(c) (required contents of notice of appeal); Havensight Capital LLC v.

Nike, Inc. , 891 F.3 d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018) (factors to consider when a party3 18

- 35557

seeks to argue the merits of an order that does not appear on the face of the notice

of appeal).

We reject as without merit Eugster’s contention that the district court

committed fraud by ente ring the pre

- filing order.

Eugster’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.

Eugster’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 21   Cephalon, Inc. Subsidiaries   Name
  
  Jurisdiction of IncorporationAnesta Corp.
  
  DelawareAnesta AG
  
  SwitzerlandAnesta UK Limited
  
  United KingdomCephalon Australia Holdings, LLC
  
  DelawareCephalon (Bermuda) Limited
  
  BermudaCephalon Development Corporation
  
  DelawareCephalon Financiere Luxembourg S.a.r.l.
  
  LuxembourgCephalon France SAS
  
  FranceCephalon France Holdings SAS
  
  FranceCephalon GmbH
  
  GermanyCephalon International Holdings, Inc.
  
  DelawareCephalon Investments, Inc.
  
  DelawareCephalon Luxembourg S.a.r.l
  
  LuxembourgCephalon Technologies Partners, Inc.
  
  DelawareCephalon Technology, Inc.
  
  DelawareCephalon Titrisation
  
  FranceCephalon (UK) Limited
  
  England and WalesCephalon Ventures, Inc.
  
  DelawareCIMA LABS INC.
  
  DelawareFinanciere Lafon SA
  
  FranceGenelco SA
  
  SwitzerlandLafon Pharma SA
  
  SwitzerlandOrganisation de Synthese Mondiale Orsymonde
  
  FranceSociete Civile Immobiliere Martigny
  
  France
#### WILSON et al. v. STATE.

No. 21261.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

H. H. Wellborn, of Henderson, for appellants.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two and one-half years.

The record fails to show that appellants gave notice of appeal. Under the circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0565 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID STANLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 15, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 9 2022

05/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0565
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1345 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1345

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory 
   treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law 
               commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Hatch Act 
Reform Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME 
              RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS APPLY TO STATE AND 
              LOCAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Applicability of Provisions Relating to State and Local 
Employees.--Section 1501(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``a State or territory'' and inserting ``a State, the 
District of Columbia, or a territory''.
    (b) Provisions Relating to Federal Employees Made Inapplicable.--
Section 7322(1) of such title is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
            (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and
            (4) by striking ``services;'' and inserting ``services or 
        an individual employed or holding office in the government of 
        the District of Columbia;''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act--
            (1) shall take effect on the effective date of a law, 
        enacted by the government of the District of Columbia after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act, which places restrictions on 
        political activities of employees of the government of the 
        District of Columbia; and
            (2) shall apply with respect to actions occurring on or 
        after the effective date referred to in paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1345

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory 
   treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law 
               commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act''.
```
AFS-14-117-E

March 10, 2014

 Exemption No. 10679A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1208

Ms. Sheryl L. Oxley

Aviation Maintenance Instructor

Tulsa Tech

801 East 91st Street

Tulsa, OK 74132

Dear Ms. Oxley:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No.10679. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 13, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Tulsa Tech, for an extension of exemption from §147.21 of Title 14 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption permits students of Tulsa Tech 

that participate in the Kid Venture/Oshkosh Air Venture program and allows authorized 

faculty members of Tulsa Tech to determine if the student time dedicated to preparing for 

and participating in the Kid Venture/Oshkosh Air Venture program activities may be 

considered creditable to satisfy the requirements of § 147.21.

In your petition, you indicate there have been no changes in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tulsa Tech.
AFS-14-117-E

2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for Exemption No. 10679 remains valid with 

respect to this extension and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided 

by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, 

I grant Tulsa Tech an exemption to continue to permit its students to participate in the Kid 

Venture/Oshkosh Air Venture program and allows authorized faculty members of Tulsa Tech 

to determine if the student time dedicated to preparing for and participating in the Kid 

Venture/Oshkosh Air Venture program activities, up to 42 hours per participating student, 

may be considered creditable toward satisfying the requirements 

§ 147.21, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The exemption is valid only for substitution of the curriculum requirements of

§ 147.21 for the purpose of student participation in Kid Venture/Oshkosh Air 

Venture program activities.

2. Only authorized faculty members of Tulsa Tech, whose students participate, may 

determine if the student’s time (dedicated to preparing for and participating in the 

Kid Venture/Oshkosh Air Venture activities) may be considered creditable to 

satisfy the requirements of 14 CFR §147.21. 

3. Creditable time is limited to a maximum of 42 hours, per participating student, per 

year. 

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10679, to May 31, 2016, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, exemption 

No. 10679, as amended.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service