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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2751 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2751

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, as the ``Mabel Lee Memorial 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2018

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, as the ``Mabel Lee Memorial 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MABEL LEE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mabel Lee 
Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 18545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

H. G. Williams, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of negligent homicide, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a-period of six months.

*188The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the information or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted), V. Bryan Lawlis, Chief Executive Officer of AradigmCorporation (the “Company”), and Thomas C. Chesterman, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) orsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 15thday of November 2004.     /s/ V. BRYAN LAWLIS   /s/ THOMAS C. CHESTERMAN   V. Bryan Lawlis   Thomas C. Chesterman*President and Chief Executive Officer*   *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
# Tukuh

Technologies

U.S. Department of Transportation August 28, 2015 Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Request to Amend Exemption No. 11916 to Regulatory Doci<et No FAA-2015-1255 for Tul<uh Technologies for additional Aircraft. Dear Sir or Madam: Tukuh Technologies respectfufly requests the addition of the following aircraft to our Exemption No. +25 - 5 and COA FAA-2015-1255-333E: 

## I 1 9i<C-- Additional Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Requested:

DJI Inspire 1— Previous Grants of Exemption approved for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management Inc. (Exemption No. 11253A) and Pacific Aviation LLC (Exemption No. 11336) 2. SenseFly eXom — Previous Grant of Exemption approved for SenseFly Ltd. (Exemption No. 11263A) Tukuh Technologies existing Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Standard Operating Procedures (TASOPS) and UAS Education and Training Program will apply to the additional Aircraft. We will follow the recommended niaintenance and operations parameters set forth by each of these respective UAS manufacturers. At all times the UAS Operator will comply with federal rule, regulation, or public law regardless of UAS manufacturer publications. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted,

; .'
Mil£e Ostrom General Manager
(

1600 Genessee, Suite 860 Kansas City, MO 64102 www.tul<uh.com



### Page 11
#### ABLES v. STATE.

No. 19939.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1938.

J. M. Parker, of Gorman, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of a horse is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Upon the written request of the appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.
|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

|              |                                                                                                                 |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Exhibit 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized April 25, 2013, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |

----

----

|      |                                                                                                                 |
|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized April 25, 2013, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 272 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the priority for enrollment 

of medal of honor recipients in the health care system of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. 

TONKO, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

priority for enrollment of medal of honor recipients in 

the health care system of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medal of Honor Pri5 ority Care Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 272 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS IN 

2 HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF DEPARTMENT OF 

3 VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) ENROLLMENT PRIORITY.—Section 1705(a) of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the period at 

7 the end and inserting the following: ‘‘and veterans 

8 who were awarded the medal of honor under section 

9 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of 

10 title 14.’’; and 

11 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘veterans who 

12 were awarded the medal of honor under section 

13 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of 

14 title 14,’’. 

15 (b) ELIGIBILITY.—Section 1710(a)(2)(D) of such 

16 title is amended by inserting after ‘‘war’’ the following: 

17 ‘‘, who was awarded the medal of honor under section 

18 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 

19 14,’’. 

20 (c) EXTENDED CARE SERVICES.—Section 

21 1710B(c)(2) of such title is amended— 

22 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

23 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

24 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub26 paragraph: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 272 IH

1 ‘‘(D) to a veteran who was awarded the medal 

2 of honor under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 

3 10 or section 491 of title 14.’’. 

4 (d) COPAYMENT FOR MEDICATIONS.—Section 

5 1722A(a)(3) of such title is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

7 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

8 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(D) to a veteran who was awarded the medal 

12 of honor under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 

13 10 or section 491 of title 14.’’. 

14 (e) APPLICATION.—The priority of enrollment of 

15 medal of honor recipients pursuant to chapter 17 of title 

16 38, United States Code, as amended by this section, shall 

17 apply to each such recipient, regardless of the date on 

18 which the medal is awarded. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ENDICOTT-JOHNSON CORPORATION v. J. I. SHOR, Garnishee.

No. 2765.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 19, 1933.

Fred J. Dudley & Associates, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. Andress, Jr., of Dallas, for defendant in error.

WALTHALL, J.

This is a companion ease to that of Brown Shoe Company v. J. I. Shor, Garnishee, 56 S.W.(2d) 466, recently considered by this court. The facts and records in the two eases are similar, and in considering this case we have reached the same conclusion as in that case. For the same reasons there stated, the case is affirmed.
OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     EXHIBIT 21: SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                        
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 1948.
The Company was reincorporated in California in 1963 and again
reincorporated in Delaware November 2, 1987.

Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. has the following subsidiaries:

NAME                             OWNERSHIP     PLACE OF INCORPORATION

OCLI International Service 
  Corporation                      100%         California

OCLI Foreign Sales Corporation     100%            Guam

OCLI Optical Coatings Limited      100%            Scotland

OCLI Optical Coating 
  Laboratory GmbH                  100%           Germany

MMG Glastechnik GmbH               100%            Germany

OCLI Monitor Produkte GmbH         100%            Germany

OCLI Optical Coatings Espana S.A.  100%            Spain

Optical Coating Laboratory B.V.    100%            Netherlands

Optical Coating Laboratory EURL    100%            France

Optical Coating Laboratory Srl     100%            Italy

OCLI Monitor Products Srl          100%            Italy

Flex Products, Inc.                 60%            Delaware


The subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company which are incorporated herein by
reference to the Company's 1995 Annual Report to Stockholders.
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### DEBRA A. DANGERFIELD VS. DIVISION OF PERSONNEL

(CC-08-0463)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks to recover $600.00 for teaching a workshop, “Writing for Results,” on June 5,2008, and June 6,2008. Since the invoice for the workshop was not submitted in time to be processed during the fiscal year, claimant did not receive payment.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in that appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $600.00.

Award of $600.00.
#### BACON v. STATE.

No. 15535.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1933.

A. L. McRae and Couch & Couch, all of Bonham, for appellant.

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

*454• LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for misdemeanor theft; punishment, a fine of $1 and one day in the county jail.

' It was charged in the information herein that appellant had possession of six hundred pounds of cotton by virtue of his rental contract for the year 1931 with his landlord M„ said cotton being rent cotton raised by appellant during that year, and that he fraudulently converted said cotton to his own use, etc. From the state’s testimony it appears that appellant raised five bales of cotton and a remnant of some eight hundred pounds in 1931, under an agreement by which he was to pay one-half of same as rent to M.; that he sold four bales and paid half their proceeds to said landlord; that when he sold the fifth bale he» did’ not account to M. for one-half the proceeds, but that M. got all of said remnant. Appellant and his witnesses testified to facts which, if true, showed that M. owed appellant $31 for work, pasturage, etc., at the time of his sale of said fifth bale of cotton. Appellant testified that M. agreed that the half of the proceeds of said fifth bale should go to pay what he owed appellant. These facts do not make out a ease of theft of the cotton. Northcutt v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 131 S. W. 1128, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 822; Alvarez v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 2 S.W.(2d) 849. Said cotton had never been in M.’s possession and could not have been acquired by appellant under any contract of hiring, borrowing, or other bailment. Appellant raised the cotton and had it in his possession by virtue of such fact.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2371

In re: DAVID LEE SMITH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order directing the district court to reopen his civil case, 

grant him in forma pauperis status, and adjudicate his civil 

complaint. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus 

relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny Smith’s motion for an en banc determination 

and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3607-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-3607-EM), dated August 5, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued August 26, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective August 20, 2024.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-20443 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 340 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-652, CP2024-661.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21357 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1493

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Damon E. Fitzgerald, * District of Nebraska. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: March 6, 2009 Filed: March 11, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, Damon Fitzgera ld was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). Fitzgerald argues that, in calculating the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 235-293 months, the district court 1 erred in denying a 2-level reduction for accepting responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.-2-We review for clear error the district court’s denial of the acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Jones , 539 F.3d 895, 897 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. SeeUnited States v. Winters , 416 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005) (f actual determination on whether defendant has demonstrated acceptance of re sponsibility is entitled to great deference and should be reversed only if it is so clear ly erroneous as to be without foundation). Fitzgerald conceded factual guilt only th rough his testimony at trial after putting the government to its burden of proof. See United States v. Crumley , 528 F.3d 1053, 1067-68 (8th Cir. 2008) (reducti on is generally not appropriate if government goes through burden of proving its case at trial, unless defendant was merely ascertaining viability of issue unrelated to guilt, such as constitutional challenge to statute). We also find that no Sixth Amendment concerns are implicated. See United States v. Benitez , 531 F.3d 711, 717 (8th Cir. 2008) (no merit to argument that § 3E1.1 has unconstitutional chilling effect on Sixth Amendment right to trial). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge. 1 

## United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4144

___________ Larry C. Larue, * * Petitioner, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 17, 1998 Filed: June 19, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry C. Larue appeals from the Tax Court’s dismissal of his petition contesting 1 the C ommissioner’s deficiency determination concerning his federal income taxes . Afterca refully reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclud e dis missal was proper for the reasons the Tax Court stated. Accordingly, we affirm . See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.