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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1060 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1060

     To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include certain 
    individuals who work on farms or ranches as individuals who are 
 employed in public service jobs for purposes of eligibility for loan 
           forgiveness under the Federal Direct Loan program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2017

Mr. Courtney (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Faso) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include certain 
    individuals who work on farms or ranches as individuals who are 
 employed in public service jobs for purposes of eligibility for loan 
           forgiveness under the Federal Direct Loan program.

    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 ``Young Farmer Success Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN FARM AND RANCH WORKERS FOR STUDENT LOAN 
              FORGIVENESS.

    (a) Eligibility.--Section 455(m)(3)(B) of the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) a full-time job as an employee or 
                        manager of a qualified farm or ranch.''.
    (b) Definition.--Section 455(m)(3) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(m)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Qualified farm or ranch.--The term `qualified 
                farm or ranch' means, with respect to a year, a farm or 
                ranch whose earnings of gross revenue during the year 
                from the sale of agricultural products are equal to or 
                greater than--
                            ``(i) in the case of 2017, $35,000; or
                            ``(ii) in the case of any succeeding year, 
                        the amount applicable under this subparagraph 
                        for the previous year increased by the 
                        estimated percentage change in the Consumer 
                        Price Index (as determined by the Secretary, 
                        using the definition in section 478(f)) for the 
                        most recent year preceding such year.''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2016

No. 04-16-00376-CV

Amanda Brooke PLESS,

Appellant

v.

Wayne J. RANSBERGER,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-1332-CV

Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 19, 2016, the trial court signed a Final Decree of Divorce, in which Appellant 

and Appellee were appointed joint managing conservators of their child C.R.R., with Appellee

having the exclusive right to designate C.R.R.’s primary residence in Guadalupe, Comal, or 

Kendall Counties. The decree additionally set out a visitation schedule.

On May 5, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied in 

open court. Appellant asserts no written order was entered. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 

on June 16, 2016. Appellant subsequently filed the instant Motion for Temporary Orders 

Pending Appeal, in which Appellant requests this court suspend operation of the final divorce 

decree. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(4).

Upon review, this court ORDERS Appellee to file in this court on or before August 3, 

2016 a response to Appellant’s Motion for Temporary Orders Pending Appeal.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### THE PEOPLE of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, upon the relation of TAZEWELL L. HARGROVE, Attorney General v. LOUIS HILLIARD.

An action to try the right of an incumbent to any public office, may be brought by the Attorney General upon his own information, or, upon the complaint of any private party.

See Syllabus in the preceding case, *Cloud*v. *Wilson.*

Civil Action, in the nature of a *quo*warranto, to try the right to the office of Judge of the Second Judicial District, tried before *Waits, J.,*at the January Term, 1875, of Wake Superior Court.

The substantial facts, pertinent to the point decided, are:

That at the election in April, 1868, the Hon. Edmund W. Jones was duly elected Judge of the Superior Court of the Second Judicial District, was commissioned and qualified; that in April, 1871, he resigned, and the Governor of the State appointed the Hon. William A. Moore to the said office, who was also duly qualified by taking the oaths of office, and that he discharged the duties of the office until the 7th day of September, 1874. That the defendant usurped said office of Judge of the Second Judicial District, and held the Court in the county of Hertford on the 7th day of September, 1874, and the various Courts of the Circuit since that time.'

The defendant demurred to the plaintiff’s complaint, for the reason that W. A. Moore was a *necessary*party. The *170Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendáut answered; insisting, that he was duty elected Judge of the Second Judicial District, according to law, on the 6th day of August last, for the residue of the unexpired term of said office.

The plaintiff filed a demurrer to the answer of defendant for insufficiency, thus raising directly the issue of title to the office, which, after argument, was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Appeal by the defendant.

*Batchelor da Son, Smith dk Strong, Carter*and *Cox,*for appellant.

*Haywood, Fowle*and *Batchelor,*contra.

Pearson, C. J.

The main question is disposed of in, *People ex rel. Cloud*v. *Wilson,*at this term. Passing by the question, whether the objection for want of parties was not waived by putting in an answer and amending the pleadings after the demurrer was overruled, we are of the opinion, that the action s not brought on the relation of the Attorney General. C. C P., sec. 366, authorizes the action to be brought by the Attorney General upon his own information, or, it may be brought upon the complaint of any private party, as was done in the case referred to. The action is well brought in either way. The only difference is, that judgement is rendered *only*in respect to the right of the defendant, sec. 370.

Pbh CüRiam. Ho error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998 and the Statement of Income for the Nine Months
Ended June 30, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              36
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                       462
<INVENTORY>                                     19,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,355
<PP&E>                                          10,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,353
<BONDS>                                         19,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,382
<SALES>                                        211,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,545
<CGS>                                          188,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 69 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 69

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior 
      relating to ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public 
 Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in 
                               Alaska''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non-
Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure 
Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 
52247 (August 5, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E30]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    HONORING HOSTELLING INTERNATIONAL-USA ON THEIR 75TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DAVID WU

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 7, 2009

  Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Hostelling 
International-USA on their 75th anniversary. Since 1934, Hostelling 
International-USA has encouraged cultural interaction among its guests 
by providing affordable overnight accommodations for domestic and 
international travelers.
  In my home state of Oregon, Hostelling International-USA operates 
three facilities, which together welcome more than 35,000 visitors each 
year.
  J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote: ``Not all those who wander are lost.'' 
Travel reminds us of the unity in our diverse world, and I believe that 
the more we interact with others, the more we can understand of 
ourselves.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Hostelling 
International-USA on this important occasion.

                          ____________________
```
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 85 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2266. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2266, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following correction: Amend the long title so as to read: 

5 ‘‘Making additional supplemental appropriations 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 85 RDS 

1 for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending 

2 September 30, 2018, and for other purposes.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 12, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
## NO. 12

- 13

- 00286

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TA'VARIS JONES,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 159T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Following a guilty plea,

Appellant was convicted of assault family violence, and his sentence was imposed in open court

on July 24, 2 013.

A n appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court when, as in this case, no motion for new trial is

timely filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Therefore, Appell ant’s notice of appeal was due to

have been filed on or before August 23, 2013. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until

August 29, 2013. Consequently, the notice of appeal was untimely.

On September 10, 2013, this court notified Appellant tha t his notice of appeal was

untimely filed and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of

appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. In response, on September 16,

2013, Appellant filed a motion to ext end the time for filing his notice of appeal.

An appellate court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days

after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the appellant files a notice of appeal in the trial

court and a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in the appellate

court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. In this case, Appellant’s motion for extension of time was due to2

have been filed on or before September 9, 2013. See id . However, Appellant did not file his

motion until September 16, 2013. Therefore, his motion was untimely and did not extend the

time for filing his notice of appeal. See id

. Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as

provi ded by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivere d September 25 , 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 25 , 2013

NO. 12

- 13

- 00286

- CR

TA'VARIS JONES, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012

- 0491)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being conside red, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and Hoyle , J

.
-~-?: '~l/~~

Chippewava"e0

REGIONAL AIRPORT

July 29,2013

Mr. Dennis J, DeVany

Chief, Essential Air Service Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

L.

c::

.--

l.,J

-P.

N

N

Dear Mr. DeVany,

The Chippewa Valley Regional Airport Commission has reviewed the air service proposal submitted by

SkyWest Ai~ines. I have been in communication with the City of Eau Claire and we agree that the

Airport Commission would provide this letter on behalf of the community.

On behalf of the Airport Commission, Iwould like to express support for the Skywest Ai~ines proposal

to provide ai~ine service to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, The combination of the lower

financial subsidy, CRJ aircraft, and non-stop service to Chicago O'Hare make the Skywest proposal

attractive to the community.

The Airport Commission is extremely pleased with the community response to the service provided by

SkyWest Ai~ines which began in March 2010. SkyWest has assisted the Airport with its marketing

program and worked to offer competitive airfares in an effort to further increase passenger traffic.

In response to this increase in passenger lraffic, the Airport Commission is pleased that SkyWest has

been able to reduce their subsidy request by almost $200,000 over the prior two year period. The

Airport will work with SkyWest 10 continue reducing that subsidy over the next two years with continued

growth in passenger traffic. A recent airline passenger analysis indicated that more than 300,000

passengers traveling from the Chippewa Valley are departing from another Airport. Ihave already been

In touch with SkyWest Airlines to determine how we can work to capture some of those passengers

and eliminate the need for future air service subsidies.

Thank you for providing this opportunity 10 comment on the SkyWesl Ai~lnes proposal to provide airline

service to the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport

Sincerely,

3800 Starr Avenue. Eau Claire, WI 54703 . 715-839-6241 , admin@chippc\\,,!v,!lIeyairport.com

www.chippewovolleyoirport.com
# Commission Briefing Notices

To view PDF files:****

 

 

Last Updated: March 25, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 67 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2017

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
     savings arrangements established by qualified State political 
              subdivisions for non-governmental employees.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the

              

 Department of Labor relating to ``Savings Arrangements Established by 
Qualified State Political Subdivisions for Non-Governmental Employees'' 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 92639 (December 20, 2016)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of
ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2007



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                      
|Paritosh K. Choksi                          
|Executive Vice President of General Partner,
|Principal Financial Officer of Registrant   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. J. Res. 41 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating 

to ‘‘Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers’’. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange 

Commission relating to ‘‘Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers’’ (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 49359 (July 27, 2016)), 

and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alderwoods Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the sixteen weeks ended
October 7, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

|Dated: November 14, 2006 | /s/PAUL A. HOUSTONPaul A. Houston
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)    
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | /s/KENNETH A. SLOANKenneth A. Sloan
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

---