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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3461 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3461

To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on 
        July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2015

 Mr. Boehner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on 
Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on 
        July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran.

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

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION.

    Congress does favor the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed 
at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3423 

To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Agent Orange Act of 1991 

to extend the certain authorities of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

regarding associations between diseases and exposure to dioxin and other 

chemical compounds in herbicides. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2015 

Mr. WALZ (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. GIBSON, Miss RICE of New York, 

Mr. NOLAN, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Agent Orange Act of 1991 to extend the certain authorities of 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding associations 

between diseases and exposure to dioxin and other chemical compounds in herbicides. 

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 ‘‘Agent Orange Exten5 sion Act of 2015’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3423 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES OF SEC2 RETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS REGARDING 

3 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN DISEASES AND EX4 POSURE TO DIOXIN AND OTHER CHEMICAL 

5 COMPOUNDS IN HERBICIDES. 

6 (a) USE OF INFORMATION TO PROVIDE FOR PRE7 SUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION.—Section 1116(e) of 

8 title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Sep9 tember 30, 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2017’’. 

10 (b) AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

11 SCIENCES.—Section 3(i) of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 

12 (Public Law 102–4; 38 U.S.C. 1116 note) is amended by 

13 striking ‘‘December 31, 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

14 31, 2017’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 09-303 Date: May 2009 

Subject: FEHB Cost Factor for Third Quarter of FY 2009 

This letter provides the imputed cost factor related to the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 

Program for the third quarter of FY 2009. The annual imputed cost factors for all civilian benefit 

programs will be provided to agencies on or before September 15, 2009. 

The FEHB cost factor for the third quarter of FY 2009 is $1,451. 

If you have any questions about this letter, and so we have a record of them, we would prefer that you 

email your questions to finance@opm.gov. Additionally, you may contact us on 202-606-0606. 

Keith Willingham 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Center for Financial Services
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 Amendment No. 5
To License Agreement
  W I T N E S S E T H :
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Capitalized Terms
  2.
    
    Term
   3.
    
    Miscellaneous
 3.1
    
    Except as specifically provided herein, nothing contained in this Amendment
shall be deemed to modify in any respect the terms, provisions or conditions of the
License Agreement, and such terms, provisions and conditions shall remain in full force
and effect.3.2
    
    This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Licensor,
Licensee and their respective permitted successors and assigns.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 LICENSOR:
Metromedia CompanyBy:
    /s/  Stuart Subotnick LICENSEE:
Metromedia International Group, Inc.By:
    /s/ Mark S. HaufMark S. Hauf, President
#### BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 14474.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1931.

See, also 115 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 29 S.W.(2d) 373.

Ratliff & Stewart, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor ; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception, in which condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2023222EN.01003001.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/30

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10958 – CARLYLE / GARNICA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 222/04)

On 29 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10958. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10958. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Attachment 1 A

FY 2012 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS PER P.L. 112-74

REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2012 VERAs

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2012 Retirement Month:

IPAC 2012

Funds submitted by: EFT FY 2012 VERAs

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK) CHECK

Payroll Office Number: Agency Location Code: Number of Covered Employees Amount Submitted

(Column 1) (Column 2) (Column 3) Column 3 x $107.62

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report. (To Be Reproduced Locally)

(Use additional forms if needed)

Signature Name - Printed
Attachment 1 B

FY 2012 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS PER P.L. 112-74

REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2012 VSIPs

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2012 Retirement Month:

IPAC 2012

Funds submitted by: EFT FY 2012 VSIPs

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK) CHECK

Payroll Office Number: Agency Location Code: Number of Covered Employees Amount Submitted

(Column 1) (Column 2) (Column 3) Column 3 x $107.62

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

(To Be Reproduced Locally)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report. (Use additional forms if needed)

Signature Name - Printed
Attachment 1 C

FY 2012 VERAs, VSIPs PROCESSING COSTS PER P.L. 112-74

REMITTANCE REPORT FOR FY 2012 VERAs with VSIPs

Remittance Date: 

Reporting Entity: POC Name: 

POC Email address: POC Phone Number: FY 2012 Retirement Month:

IPAC 2012

Funds submitted by: EFT FY 2012 VERAs with VSIPs

(Indicate IPAC, EFT or CHECK) CHECK

Payroll Office Number: Agency Location Code: Number of Covered Employees Amount Submitted

(Column 1) (Column 2) (Column 3) Column 3 x $107.62

FERS

TOTALS (A) $

CSRS

TOTALS (B) $

AMOUNT SUBMITTED $

(Must Equal A + B)

(To Be Reproduced Locally)

I certify to the best of my knowledge, the accuracy and completeness of this Remittance Report. (Use additional forms if needed)

Signature Name - Printed
# C_2023152EN.01000501.xml

| 28.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.105268

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 152/04)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 6.2.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.105268 |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region | Sweden |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Procurement of reduction of electricity consumption |
| Legal basis | Regeringsbeslut — Uppdrag att genomföra upphandling av förbrukningsflexibilitet under höglasttimmar |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy, Energy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 1 000 000 000 SEK
  Annual budget: 1 000 000 000 SEK |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.3.2023 |
| Economic sectors | ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Affärsverket Svenska kraftnät |
| Box 1200, 172 24 Sundbyberg |

Date of adoption of the decision

6.2.2023

Aid number

SA.105268

Member State

Sweden

Region

Sweden

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Procurement of reduction of electricity consumption

Legal basis

Regeringsbeslut — Uppdrag att genomföra upphandling av förbrukningsflexibilitet under höglasttimmar

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy, Energy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 1 000 000 000 SEK

Annual budget: 1 000 000 000 SEK

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.3.2023

Economic sectors

ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY

Name and address of the granting authority

Affärsverket Svenska kraftnät

Box 1200, 172 24 Sundbyberg

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
#### McGUIRE v. OSAGE OIL CORPORATION et al.

Motion No. 10914; No. 6016.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Dec. 30, 1933.

Por prior opinion, see 55 S.W.(2d) 535.

McParlane & McFarlane and P. V. Hin-son, all of Graham, and John D. McComb, of Jacksboro, for plaintiff in error.

Cantey, Hanger & McMahon, of Port Worth, and Vinson, Elkins, Sweeton & Weems, of Houston, P. T. Denny, of Port Worth, and Tom Fletcher, of Houston, for defendant in error.

CRITZ, Judge.

There is on file with the record in this case a narrative statement of facts. This document appears to have been duly prepared and certified to by the official court reporter. It is also duly agreed to by all parties to the suit as a true, accurate, and complete transcript of all of the evidence adduced at the trial. It is also duly approved by the trial judge. This document was filed in the district court on July 3, 1930, and in the Court of Civil Appeals on July 15, 1930. This narrative statement of facts was filed in compliance with the statutes in force at the time. The proper charge under article 2238, R. C. S. of Texas 1925, for the abové narrative statement of facts, was about $70.-57, being 20 cents per hundred words.

There also appears on file in this case a Q. and A. transcript of the evidence, which is duly certified to by the official court reporter. This document was filed in the district court on July 3,1930. It is not agreed to by any of the parties and is not approved by the trial judge.

The “Bill of Costs’’ appearing in the district court transcript contains the following item: “Statement.of Facts.$235.00.”

From the above it is plain to us that both the narrative statement of facts and the Q. and A. transcript of the evidence have been taxed as costs in this case. Also by the judgment of this court said amount was adjudged against H. B. McGuire.

With the record in the above condition, McGuire has filed in the Supreme Court a motion to retax costs so as not to allow any judgment against him for fees to the district court stenographer for making up Q. and A. transcript of the evidence.

Under the law in force at the time this case was tried and this appeal perfected, only the narrative statement of facts should have been charged as an item of costs in the case. Burks v. Neutzler (Tex. Com. App.) 7 S.W. (2d) 65. The question of law here involved is fully discussed in the above case and it is unnecessary to discuss it further here.

We recommend that the motion to retax costs be granted, and that the item of $235 for statement of facts, heretofore taxed be reduced to $70.57.
#### RENFRO v. BURRELL.

No. 12856.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

March 9, 1940.

Bishop & Parsons, of Athens, for appellant.

Jack T. Life, of Athens, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of temporary injunction. On March 4, 1939, Julia Bur-rell, administrator of the estate of Marion Barker, deceased, filed sworn petition for such relief against appellant, alleging that, as administrator of said estate, she had rented 112 acres thereof to Jim Massey for the year, and that said tenant was living thereon and attempting to farm the same; that appellant was trespassing on the property and endeavoring to cultivate a part of the land, against the wishes and demands of the administrator; that regardless of protest, appellant was exercising rights of tenancy for the year 1939; appellee, as plaintiff, pleading irreparable injury and no adequate remedy at law. A writ of temporary injunction was granted ex parte, which was forthwith superseded, the record being filed in this court March 13, 1939.

Though, from the nature of the proceedings, this cause had priority over other pending cases, no motion has been made by either party to advance and promptly dispose of the issues on appeal. Art. 4662, R.S. It is further obvious from appellee’s verified pleading that the same involves possessory rights to the acreage in question for the year of 1939 — subject matter which has now become moot. As a consequence, this appeal must be dismissed at appellant’s cost.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Bar Docket No. 21449

In the Matter of D ENNIS J AMES B ONNER
,

Respondent.

O RDER OF DISBARMENT

In a letter signed September 1 , 2016 , addressed to the C lerk of the Appellate
Courts, respondent Dennis James Bonner , an attorney admitted to the practice of law in

the state of Kan sas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas,

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 390 ).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, two complaints had been
docketed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation. The
complaint s alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1. 1
(201 5 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 442 ) ( competence ) ; 1.3 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 461 )

( diligence); 1.4 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 482 ) ( communication); 1.15 (2015 Kan. Ct. R.

Annot. 556 ) ( safekeeping property) ; 1.16 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot

. 572) ( terminating

representat ion); and 8.4 (c) and (d) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot

. 672) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the o ffice of the Disciplinary

Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent' s license should be accepted and
that the respondent sh ould be disbarred.

I T I S T HEREFORE O RDERED that Dennis James Bonner be and he is hereby
disbarred from the pr actice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law
are hereby revoked.2

I T I S F URTHER O RDERED t hat the Clerk of the Appellate C ourts strike the name of

Dennis James Bonner from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

I T I S F URTHER O RDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports,
that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith
shall comply w ith Supreme Court Rule 218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401 ).

Dated this 13th day of Septem ber, 2016

.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0787; FRL ] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPAproposes t&approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state o.f Missouri . This revision applies to Missouri's rule relating to restriction of emission of visible air contaminants and removes redundant definitions, removes an outdated exemption for incinerators used to burn refuse in the outstate area of Missouri, and clarifies that the test methods stated in the rule shall be used to determine the opacity of visible emissions. EPA is not taking action on the state submitted revisions relating to open burning, as these provisions revise a rule that has not been adopted into the SIP. This revision will ensure consistency between the state and the Federally-approved rules. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by [insert date 30 days fromthe date of publication in the Federal Register] . ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0787, by mail to Lachala Kemp, Environmental2

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: Lachala Kemp at (913) 551- 

### 7214, or by e-mail at kemp.lachala@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal Regi ster, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision with the exception of the reference in section (1)(I), to the open burning rule in 10 CSR 10-6.045, as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this is a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. Adetailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPAwill not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action3

should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed fromthe remainder of the rule, EPAmay adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse 

### comment. For additional information, see the,direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register. Dated: 

### GE~r" k1 j'0 OD1 December 15, 2009 WilJ~amRice, Acting Regional Administrator, Reaion 7.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Charmed Homes Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Ian Quinn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 22ndday of October, 2007.                                                                                                                 
|   

IAN QUINNIan Quinn, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief 
Financial Officer



















---
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 304

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R. AND X.R. , CHILDREN

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Aransas County, Texas

.



## ORDER

Before Justices Longoria , Hinojosa, and Silva Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Following an initial

motion to extend the time to file the brief, a ppellant’s brief was due on or before

September 12, 2022. However, on September 1, 2022, the Department of Family and

Protective Services (Department) filed a motion to modify the judgment in the trial court

. Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time seek ing t wenty days of additional

time to file the brief from the date the trial court rules on the Department’s motion to modify

the judgment

. This Court granted a ppellant’s second motion on September 8, 2022. To2 date, no supplemental records have been filed demonstrating the trial court’s ruling.

Further, no other motions or notices have been filed by either party.

Appeals in parental termination and child protecti on cases are governed by the

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited

deadlines and procedures. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). The

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that

appeals in such cases are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the

notice of appeal is filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). A s such

, it is the policy of this

Court to limit extensions of time in such cases absent truly extraordinary circumstances.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to file her brief with this Court no later than the

10th day from the date of this order

. After appellant’s brief has been filed, appellee’s time

to file its brief will begin.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed on the 5 th day of Oc t ober , 20 2 2.