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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 30 Received in Senate (RDS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 30

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 9, 2015

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour 
 threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of 
the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
                     and replace it with 40 hours.

    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 ``Save American Workers Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 30-HOUR THRESHOLD FOR CLASSIFICATION AS FULL-TIME 
              EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYER MANDATE IN THE 
              PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND 
              REPLACEMENT WITH 40 HOURS.

    (a) Full-Time Equivalents.--Paragraph (2) of section 4980H(c) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by repealing subparagraph (E), and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time 
                employees.--Solely for purposes of determining whether 
                an employer is an applicable large employer under this 
                paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number 
                of full-time employees for any month otherwise 
                determined, include for such month a number of full-
                time employees determined by dividing the aggregate 
                number of hours of service of employees who are not 
                full-time employees for the month by 174.''.
    (b) Full-Time Employees.--Paragraph (4) of section 4980H(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by repealing subparagraph (A), and
            (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `full-time employee' 
                means, with respect to any month, an employee who is 
                employed on average at least 40 hours of service per 
                week.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either 
PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 8, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3130 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3130

           To protect victims of stalking from gun violence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2015

Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Mr. Dold) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To protect victims of stalking from gun violence.

    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 ``Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF DATING PARTNERS AND INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO 
              RESTRAINING ORDERS.

    (a) Definition.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (32) and inserting the following:
    ``(32) The term `intimate partner'--
            ``(A) means with respect to a person, the spouse of the 
        person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a 
        parent of a child of the person, and an individual who 
        cohabitates or has cohabited with the person; and
            ``(B) includes--
                    ``(i) a dating partner (as defined in section 
                2266); and
                    ``(ii) any other person similarly situated to a 
                spouse who is protected by the domestic or family 
                violence laws of the State or tribal jurisdiction in 
                which the injury occurred or where the victim 
                resides.''; and
            (2) in paragraph (33)(A)(ii)--
                    (A) by inserting ``intimate partner,'' after 
                ``former spouse,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``intimate partner,'' after ``a 
                spouse,'' each place it appears.
    (b) Addition of Stalking.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) in paragraph (8)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor 
        crime of stalking.''; and
            (2) in subsection (g)--
                    (A) in paragraph (8)(C)(ii), by striking ``or'' at 
                the end;
                    (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor 
        crime of stalking,''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I NO C E NC I O P E NA - R OME R O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70699 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 762- 960 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . Inocenci o P ena- R om er o, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . §1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence 

# FI LED JU N 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70699 2 th e B I A ’s c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e d e te rm in a tio n . G ut i errez v . Mukasey , 521 F .3 d1 1 1 4 , 1 1 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatP ena- R om er o di d n otm ee tthe cont i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence re qu i re m entbecause he t es t i fi ed that he a c c e pt e d vol unt aryde partur e i n 1996, the r e byi nt e rrupt i ng hi s a c c rua l of c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e in th e U n ite dS ta te s . Se e id. a t1117- 18; V a s q u ez -L o

p ezv . A s h c r o

ft , 3 4 3 F .3 d9 6 1 , 9 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### NORRIS v. STATE.

No. 14333.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1931.

R. G. Robertson, of Port Arthur, for appellant.

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

*116MORROW, P. J.

Unlawfully carrying a pistol is the offense; punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

The testimony of M. B. Word, chief of police, is summarized as follows: He received a telephone message from some person who stated that she was Jeanette Norris, the divorced wife of Whitney Norris; that the person calling him stated over the telephone that Whitney Norris had made threats against the life of Jeanette Norris and was coming to the place where she was staying and would probably have a pistol on his person. The witness went to the place mentioned and was told by the lady with whom Jeanette Norris was living, in the presence of the latter, that Whitney Norris had just passed the house. Word went around the block, and upon his return found Whitney Norris standing in the front of the house. Jeanette Norris was standing in the door with something in her hand. Whitney Norris was immediately arrested.

The appellant’s testimony is, in substance, as follows: A short time before his arrest, he had borrowed a pistol from his divorced wife, Jeanette Norris, to take with him on a trip to an adjoining state. 1-Ie was at the place where he was arrested for the purpose of returning the pistol to her. He had made no threats towards her and had no intention of doing her any harm. He had just arrived at the place, and had not gone in the house, but was standing on the ground at the edge of the porch, waiting for her to come and get the pistol.

The testimony of Jeanette Norris was to the following effect: The pistol belonged to her. She had loaned the pistol to the appellant, who took it with him on a trip to Louisiana; that he was returning the pistol to her. She did not telephone for an officer, but that some other person must have done so; that the lady at whose house she was staying became alarmed when she learned that Whitney Norris was coming to the house, and it was she who sent for the officer.

The state’s ease rests upon- the evidence that some one claiming to be Jeanette Norris had called for an officer and stated that the appellant had threatened her with violence; that the officer found the appellant at the home of Jeanette Norris and in possession of a pistol. No one testified that the appellant had made any threats nor that Jeanette Norris had sent for an officer. On the contrary, both of these matters were denied by her and not verified by any one upon the trial. If the appellant had borrowed the pistol and was returning it, he was within his rights under the law. The court instructed the jury to that effect, but in the opinion of the writer, the evidence does not justify the contrary conclusion. Eor that reason the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded, which is accordingly ordered.
#### TEMPLE TRUST CO. et al. v. MURFEE et ux.

No. 4430.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

May 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1939.

*774Bean, Evans & Bean, of Lubbock, Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, and John B. Daniel and W. R. Brown, both of Temple, for appellants.

Vickers & Campbell, of Lubbock, for ap-pellees.

JACKSON, Chief Justice.

A sufficient statement of the facts and the law involved in this appeal are contained in the opinion of the Supreme Court, reported in 126 S.W.2d 643, in answer to a certified question propounded by this Court. The Supreme Court holds that J. E. Mur-fee and his wife, Sarah E. Murfee, the plaintiffs, were not entitled, even if the loan contract they made with the Temple Trust Company was usurious, to have the interest they had paid to the Temple Trust Company and by its distributed to the holders of the first nine notes applied to the payment, discharge and satisfaction of Note No. 10 for $1700, owned by the Farmers State Bank of Temple.

In our opinion, the contract, in view of the record, is usurious. Stubbs et ux. v. Temple Trust Co., Tex.Com.App., 126 S.W.2d 645.

In an opinion announced May 15, 1939 we reversed and rendered the judgment in this case but on further investigation we find the record does not contain sufficient data for us to determine the amount of interest paid on Note No. 10, nor when nor to whom paid, hence, we are Unable to ascertain the amount of the judgment that should be rendered in favor of the Farmers State Bank of Temple against J. E. Murfee upon which the bank is entitled to a foreclosure, nor the amount of the judgment that should be rendered in favor of said bank on its cross-action against the parties from whom it acquired the note.

The former opinion is therefore withdrawn and the judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
# Official Journal L 50/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.050.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5622 February 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.050.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 50

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5622 February 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 147/2013 of 13 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy statistics, as regards the implementation of updates for the monthly and annual energy statistics | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 147/2013 of 13 February 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy statistics, as regards the implementation of updates for the monthly and annual energy statistics

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6510

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN AUSTIN EDWARDS, a/k/a Shakim, a/k/a Doquan Cooper, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-225-2) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Austin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel, for recusal of the district court judge, and for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7155

LONNIE OGLESBEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden; CAPTAIN WILSON; CAPTAINS JOHNSON; 

S.I.A. PITT; A.M. SHIFT PRISON GUARDS; WEBB, Special Housing 

Unit Guard; KEGLEY, Special Housing Unit Guard; C/O 

HAMILTON, Special Housing Unit Guard; ANDERS, Special 

Housing Unit Guard; MOORE, Special Housing Unit Guard; MR. 

FORTNER, Special Housing Unit Guard; STANLEY, Special 

Housing Unit Guard; JARRELL, Special Housing Unit Guard; 

OTHER UNAMED GUARDS, Special Housing Unit; SHREIBER, Special 

Housing Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00322-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lonnie Oglesbee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lonnie Oglesbee appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his civil action filed pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.∗

 ∗ Generally, dismissals without prejudice are interlocutory 

and not appealable. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). However, a 

dismissal without prejudice could be final if no amendment to 

the complaint could cure the defect in the plaintiff’s case. 

Id. at 1066-67. We conclude that the defect in this case (the 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies) can only be cured by 

something more than an amendment to the complaint and that the 

order is appealable.

 Because the record contains allegations that prison 

staff denied Oglesbee grievance forms and retaliated against him 

for using the administrative grievance process, we conclude that 

the failure to exhaust is not clear from the face of the 

complaint. See Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Servs., 407 F.3d 

674, 682-83 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Moore v. Bennette, 517 

F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we vacate the 

judgment of the district court and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. We deny Oglesbee’s 

motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
# Official Journal C 94A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.094.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 94A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 563 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.094.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 94A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 563 April 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2013/C 094A/01 | Corrigendum to Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), buildings sector (OJ C 29 A, 31.1.2013) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2013/C 094A/01

Corrigendum to Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), buildings sector (OJ C 29 A, 31.1.2013)

(OJ C 29 A, 31.1.2013)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

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

EN
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As  independent  public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of  our  reports  included   in  this  Form  11-K,  into  Portland  General
Corporation's previously filed  Registration Statement No. 33-27462 on Form
S-8,  Registration  Statement  No.  33-40943   on  Form  S-8,  Registration
Statement No. 33-49811 on Form S-8, Registration  Statement No. 33-55321 on
Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 33-61313 on Form S-8.

                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Portland, Oregon,
March 17, 1997

                                 <PAGE>
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-1127

Docket Number

2010-SW-035-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-05-35, dated 

June 21, 2005; and

Bell Helicopter Textron ASB No. 430-01-22, dated April 30, 2001.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  December      15, 2008 | /s/      Shouquan      Sun                                                                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                          | Shouquan      Sun                                                                                                                                |
|                                          | Chief      Executive      Officer, Chief      Financial Officer, Principal      Accounting Officer, President, Secretary and      Treasurer |
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

Inconnection with this quarterly report of ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccessLLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I,Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  August 13, 2010

 
| By:    | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS                         |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barbra  E. Kocsis                             |   |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer                      |   |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

 

----