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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1632 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1632

 To prohibit the use of Federal money for print, radio, television or 
 any other media advertisement, campaign, or form of publicity against 
   the use of a food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under the 
                 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2017

Mr. DesJarlais (for himself, Mr. Barr, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, and Mr. 
Roe of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal money for print, radio, television or 
 any other media advertisement, campaign, or form of publicity against 
   the use of a food or beverage that is lawfully marketed under the 
                 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Foods and Beverages from 
Government Attack Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING RESTRICTION.

    No part of any appropriation contained in any Act may be used for 
print, radio, television or any other media advertisement, campaign, or 
form of publicity against the use of a food or beverage that is 
lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
Please see Attachments for Technical Support Document for

U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s

Estuaries, Coastal Waters, and South Florida Inland Flowing Waters,

Volume 1: Estuaries Appendices D-G
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE  QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 2000  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>



<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                          9,774,997
<SECURITIES>                                   16,025,719
<RECEIVABLES>                                  36,039,229 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (827,422)
<INVENTORY>                                    30,971,252 <F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,678,371
<PP&E>                                             97,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (20,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 95,739,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,862,738
<BONDS>                                        66,925,507 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           43,911
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,907,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   95,739,409
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  452,339
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,805,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,943,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (5,297,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,870,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,426,715)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 1,242,003
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,184,712)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.65)


<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES MATURED POLICIES RECEIVABLE AND LOANS RECEIVABLE.
<F2> INCLUDES PURCHASED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
<F3> REPRESENTS LONG TERM BORROWINGS OF THE COMPANY.
</FN>





</TABLE>
Order filed September 28, 2017

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00348

- CV

____________ GILCHRIST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION , Appellant

V.
COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0076026



### O R D E R

Our review has determined that relevant item s have been omitted from the
clerk’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain an Order signed July 21, 2017 and Agreed Final Judgment signed August 21, 2017.
The Galveston County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before October 13, 2017, containing an Order signed July 21, 2017 and Agreed Final Judgment signed August 21, 2017.If the omit ted item s are not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted
item s are not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 175 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 175

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
             Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

 Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Gibbs, 
   Mr. Amash, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Jody B. Hice of 
  Georgia, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. 
 Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Cole, Mr. Sanford, 
Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Olson, Mr. Babin, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. 
 Westerman, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Duncan of Tennessee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, 
 Education and the Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, House 
     Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, 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 repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
             Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

    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 ``ObamaCare Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND 
              THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

    (a) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.--Effective as of 
the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
Law 111-148), such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended 
or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not 
been enacted.
    (b) Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.--
Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), such Act is repealed, 
and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored 
or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

         FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR NINTENDO
                                    GAMECUBE

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") amends that certain Confidential
License Agreement for Nintendo GameCube dated March 29, 2002 between Nintendo of
America Inc. ("Nintendo") and Infogrames, Inc. ("Licensee") ("Agreement").

                                    RECITALS

WHEREAS, Nintendo and Licensee entered into the Agreement

WHEREAS, Licensee notified Nintendo via letter dated March 6, 2003, in
accordance with section 12.2 of the Agreement, that Licensee changed its name to
Atari, Inc. for corporate branding purposes;

WHEREAS, the Agreement currently expires on March 29, 2005, and the parties now
desire to extend the Term of the Agreement as set forth below.

                                    AMENDMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1.    The Term of the Agreement is hereby extended for an additional three (3)
      years. The Term of the Agreement shall now expire on March 29, 2008.

2.    All references in the Agreement to Infogrames, Inc., shall be replaced by
      Atari, Inc., and all references to Licensee shall mean Atari, Inc.

3.    All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force
      and effect. This First Amendment may be signed in counterparts, which
      together shall constitute one original First Amendment.

      Signatures provided by facsimile shall be the equivalent of originals.

This First Amendment shall be effective as of March 29, 2005.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment.

NINTENDO:                             LICENSEE:

Nintendo of America Inc.              Atari, Inc.

By: /s/ James R. Cannataro            By:  /s/ Jeffrey B. Kempler
    ------------------------               ----------------------------
Name: James R. Cannataro              Name:  Jeffrey B. Kempler
Its: EVP; Administration              Its:   Senior Vice President, Business and
                                             Legal Affairs
                                             Atari, Inc.
#### Cowan, Appellant, vs. Beans and another, Respondents.

*December 10, 1913*

January *13, 1914.*

*Appeal from county court: "Person aggrieved.:" Proponent of will.*

1. The proponent of a will, who is named as executor therein, is a “person aggrieved” hy a judgment of the county court refusing prohate to the will, and hence, under sec. 4031, Stats., may appeal from such judgment.

2. Such a person, if he in good faith believes that the will has been wrongfully denied probate by the county court, should appeal from the decision.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Winnebago county: Geo. W. BubNell, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

*418For tbe appellant there was a brief by *Garter & Pedrichj*and oral argument by *8. M. Pedrich.*

For tbe respondents tbe cause was submitted on tbe brief of *John W. Hume*and *Silas Bullard.*

Winslow, O. J.

In this case .it is beld that tbe proponent of a will, wbo is named as executor therein, is a “person aggrieved” by a judgment of tbe county court refusing probate to tbe will, and hence may appeal from sucb judgment under tbe provisions of sec. 4031, Stats. 1911.

Sucb a person is tbe representative of tbe testator and is charged with tbe duty of seeing that tbe will is probated and its provisions carried into effect. Public policy also requires that' a legally executed will be probated, and tbe person named as executor has a public as well as a private duty to perform. If be in good faith believes that tbe will has been wrongfully denied probate by tbe county court, be should appeal from tbe decision. *Burmeister v.*Gust, 117 Minn. 247, 135 N. W. 980; *Cheever v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge,*45 Mich. 6, 7 N. W. 186; *Will of Dardis,*135 Wis. 457, 115 N. W. 332.

*By the Gourt.*— Order reversed, and action remanded for further proceedings according to law.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of M.A.A., A.M.V., N.A.V., J.A.V., children

Appellate case number: 01-20-00709-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-02310J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

This appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship. Appellant, R.M.,

has filed an unopposed motion to extend time to file his brief. The motion is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on December 28, 2020.

Because this is a termination case, the Court is required to bring this appeal to final

disposition within 180 days of the date of the notice of appeal was filed so far as reasonably 

possible. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. 

For this reason, no additional extensions of time to file a brief will be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss___________________

Acting individually

Date: December 10, 2020
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

INSIGNIA SOLUTIONSPLC

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Insignia Solutions plc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark E. McMillan, ChiefExecutive 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)                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  MARK E.  MCMILLAN |   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|
| Mark E. McMillan            |   |
| Chief Executive Officer     |   |
| August 14, 2003             |   |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1694 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1694

  To require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of 
section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
          Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2017

  Mr. Chaffetz (for himself, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Russell, Mr. Duncan of 
  Tennessee, Mr. Massie, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Comer, Mr. Blum, and Mr. 
    Issa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of 
section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
          Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF FOIA.

    (a) Amendment to Definition of Agency.--Section 552(f)(1) of title 
5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
Information Act), is amended by striking ``or other establishment in 
the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office 
of the President), or any independent regulatory agency'' and inserting 
the following: ``any other establishment in the executive branch of the 
Government (including the Executive Office of the President), any 
independent regulatory agency, and the Federal National Mortgage 
Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation during any 
period such enterprise is under conservatorship or receivership 
pursuant to section 1367 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial 
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617)''.
    (b) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall be effective on the date of the enactment of this 
Act and shall apply with respect to any request filed under section 
552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, on or after such effective 
date, relating to any record created before, on, or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III's Meeting With Malaysian Minister of Defense Hishammuddin Hussein

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
No. 82-892.

#### Hanigan *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Jensen, Respondent, vs. Graham, Appellant.

*December 3, 1929*

January *7, 1930.*

*358For the appellant there was a brief by *McGovern, Curtis, Devos & Reiss*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *John J. Devos.*

*C. A. Nelson*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Owen, J.

The defendant was under general contract to erect a dwelling. He contracted with the plaintiff to do the painting inside and out in a good workmanlike manner according to specifications. Plaintiff brings this action to recover under the painting contract. The defense is that the work was not done in a workmanlike manner nor in accordance with the requirements of the contract.

Much fault is found with the job. There is a good deal of testimony to show that the outside painting was not done in a workmanlike manner and that the paint would brush off, leaving chalk marks on the hands or the clothing coming in contact therewith. There is other testimony, however, that the work was done in a good workmanlike manner, and, whether it was or not, seems to present a clear jury question. There is like evidence with reference to the inside painting, and whether that was done in a good workmanlike manner also presents a typical jury question. However, the contract required that the oak floors be given two coats of varnish. *359It is conceded by the plaintiff that he applied one coat of shellac and only one coat of varnish. It is also conceded that this was not in accordance with the contract.

The first question submitted to the jury was this: “Did the plaintiff perform the work in accordance with the written agreement in question in a good workmanlike manner?” The jury answered this question Yes, and pursuant to the instruction of the court did not answer the second question, which asked “What was the reasonable cost of having the defects in the work remedied so that it would conform with the contract?” As it is undisputed that the oak floors received one coat of shellac and one coat of varnish, while the contract called for two coats of varnish, there was no justification for the finding of the jury that the work was performed in accordance with the written contract. The answer to that question cannot stand, in view of the conceded fact that the work was not done in accordance with the written contract.

Further material considerations necessary to a determination of the rights of the parties are, whether the plaintiff offered to complete the work so that it would conform with the contract and the reasonable cost of the work necessary to make it conform with the contract. There is evidence in the record bearing upon both of these questions, but it is in dispute, and neither question can be determined by the court so as to direct the entry of the proper judgment. For these reasons there must be a new trial.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID ALLEN WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (1:95-cr-00006-gmw-1; 7:06-cv-00014-jct)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 31, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

final order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion because

it was without authorization from this court. The final order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude Wilson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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