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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1508 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1508

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, 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 ``Guidance Clarity Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED.

    (a) Requirement.--Each agency, as defined in section 551 of title 
5, United States Code, shall include a guidance clarity statement as 
described in subsection (b) on any guidance issued by that agency under 
section 553(b)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, on and after the 
date that is 30 days after the date on which the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget issues the guidance required under subsection 
(c).
    (b) Guidance Clarity Statement.--A guidance clarity statement 
required under subsection (b) shall--
            (1) be displayed prominently on the first page of the 
        document; and
            (2) include the following: ``The contents of this document 
        do not have the force and effect of law and do not, of 
        themselves, bind the public or the agency. This document is 
        intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding 
        existing requirements under the law or agency policies.''.
    (c) OMB Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget shall issue guidance to implement this Act.

SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1508

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000883476
<NAME> CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,662
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              76
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                89,075
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,457
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,954
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            15,536
<LOANS>                                         76,814
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,207
<DEPOSITS>                                     122,266
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,543
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,050
<LONG-TERM>                                     13,490
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,785
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 206,207
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,819
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  522
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    44
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,419
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,319
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,591
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,827
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      235
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,214
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      45,858
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,858
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.82
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       803
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,460
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   865
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       13
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,088
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,017
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             71


</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 186 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1 League in Irvine, California, as the 

‘‘Tuskegee Airman Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMAN LIEUTENANT COLONEL 

4 ROBERT J. FRIEND MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

5 BUILDING. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

7 Postal Service located at 1 League in Irvine, California, 

8 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Tuskegee Airman 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1170 RS

1 Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend Memorial Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tuskegee Airman 

7 Lieutenant Colonel Robert J. Friend Memorial Post Office 

8 Building’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 186 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. Colonel Robert J. Friend Memorial Post Office fornia, as the ‘‘Tuskegee Airman Lieutenant al Service located at 1 League in Irvine, CaliDECEMBER 16, 2021 

Reported without amendment 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Rafael Gilberto COLON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D17-4779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ryan J. SIMMONS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1373 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal medical 

assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian organizations, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. KHANNA, 

Mr. STANTON, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. COLE, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, and Ms. 

DELBENE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

a Federal medical assistance percentage of 100 percent 

for urban Indian organizations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Indian Health 

5 Parity Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1373 IH

1 SEC. 2. FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENT2 AGE FOR URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS. 

3 Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 1396d(b)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘by an Indian 

5 tribe or tribal organization (as defined in section 4 of the 

6 Indian Health Care Improvement Act)’’ the following: ‘‘, 

7 or through an urban Indian organization (as defined in 

8 section 4 of such Act) pursuant to a grant or contract 

9 with the Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian 

10 Health Care Improvement Act’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.1
        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Steve Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp.

|                         |                        |                                            
|------------------------ | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|Date:  December 20, 2007 |                       
|                         |                       
|                         | /s/ Steve Frickenstein
|                         |                        |                                            
|                         |                        | Steve Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer

|E-3
|---
#### Balwinder SINGH and Sukhwinder Kaur, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71173

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

*521Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioners

Traeie Nicole Jones, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Jiang v. Holder,*754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Singh’s inconsistent testimony regarding his participation in Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar rallies and the discrepancies between Singh and Kaur’s testimony as to whether Singh’s father participated in securing Singh’s release after his third alleged arrest. *See id.; Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to sufficiently eon-sider their corroborative evidence. *See Garcia v. Holder,*749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate testimony or support independent claim for relief). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Jiang,*754 F.3d at 740.

Finally, petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and petitioners do not point to any evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. *See id.*at 740-41.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*522ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Allied Properties, LLC, Respondent, v 236 Cannon Realty LLC et al., Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 880]

*319Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered November 29, 2002, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants, in seeking to dismiss this action on the ground that there is another action pending, have failed to make the requisite showing that the other action, a federal action which they commenced, was improperly preempted by a race to the courthouse, or that the actions involve identical parties and issues *(see Guilden v Baldwin Sec. Corp.,*189 AD2d 716 [1993]). Although defendants urge that the denial of their motion is not in the interest of judicial economy since it will cause related litigation to be pursued in two forums instead of one, the premise upon which this argument is founded, namely, that state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims and that they must resort to federal court, is inaccurate *(see Simpson Elec. Corp. v Leucadia, Inc.,*72 NY2d 450 [1988]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 12

                             THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
            Computation of Ratio of Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                         and Preferred Stock Dividends
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

                             Nine Months Ended              Year Ended
                               September 30,               December 31,
                            -------------------   ------------------------------
                              1997       1996       1996       1995       1994
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Income from continuing
 operations before income
 taxes and preferred
 dividends                  $163,331   $138,172   $185,822   $150,834   $122,863
Add fixed charges:
 Interest expense            304,647    269,571    366,543    337,814    210,001
 One-third rentals             2,052      1,722      2,368      2,084      2,053
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
   Total fixed charges       306,699    271,293    368,911    339,898    212,054
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Income as adjusted          $470,030   $409,465   $554,733   $490,732   $334,917
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Ratio of income to fixed
 charges                        1.53       1.51       1.50       1.44       1.58
                            ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Preferred stock dividends
 on a pre-tax basis         $  5,095   $      0   $      0   $      0   $      0
Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 stock dividends            $311,794   $271,293   $368,911   $339,898   $212,054
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Ratio of income to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 stock dividends                1.51       1.51       1.50       1.44       1.58
                            ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
                                       12
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 10, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                         |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883369
<NAME> FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,261
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,985
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    890
<INCOME-TAX>                                       376
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Caylon Johnson v. The State of Texas Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 008 33

- CR ; 01

- 13

- 00834

- CR
Trial court case number: 1 338720, 1338721
Trial court: 174 th District Court of Harris County
On March 10 , 201 5 , this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine whether appellant wished to prosecute the se appeal s and, if so, whether appellant’s retained counsel has abandoned the appeal s
. On April 24, 2015, t he trial court held a hearing on our abatement order. The reporter’s record of the abatement hearing indicates that appellant and his counsel stated on the record in open court that appellant no longer wishes to prosecute th e s e appeal s
. Accordingly, on M ay 5, 2015, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law f

inding that appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal s
. W e REINSTATE th e s e case s on the Court’s active docket. The case s will be set for submission and considered without briefs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(4) (“If the trial court has found that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal

. . . the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justi ce may require.” ); see also Ayala v. State , No. 01

- 13

- 00393

- CR, 2015 WL 161788, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 13, 2015, no pet.); Compian v. State , No. 01

- 08

- 00034

- CR, 2010 WL 3220644, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 12, 2010, no pet .).
It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually

Date: June 11, 2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 24, 2011 

Order 

 

August 24, 2011 

141741(59) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 141741 

v COA: 280073 

Kent CC: 01-008625-FC 

RAMON LEE BRYANT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_______________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension to 

August 10, 2011 of the time for filing their brief on appeal is considered and it is granted.