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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6210 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6210

To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2023

  Ms. Wexton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, 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. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GENERAL GEORGE C. MARSHALL HOUSE AS AN 
              AFFILIATED AREA.

    (a) In General.--The General George C. Marshall House, in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, is established as an affiliated area of the 
National Park System to promote public appreciation of the significant 
historic contributions made by United States military leader and 
statesman George Catlett Marshall, Jr.
    (b) Description of Affiliated Area.--The affiliated area shall 
consist of the area generally depicted as the ``General George C. 
Marshall House Property, Leesburg, Virginia'' on the map titled 
``General George C. Marshall House, Proposed Affiliated Area'', 
numbered 999/189,974, and dated September 2023.
    (c) Administration.--The affiliated area shall be managed in a 
manner consistent with--
            (1) this section; and
            (2) any law generally applicable to units of the National 
        Park System.
    (d) Management Entity.--The George C. Marshall International Center 
shall be the management entity for the affiliated area.
    (e) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary of the Interior 
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') may provide 
technical assistance and enter into cooperative agreements with the 
management entity for the purpose of providing financial assistance for 
the marketing, marking, interpretation, and preservation of the 
affiliated area.
    (f) Limited Role of the Secretary.--Nothing in this section 
authorizes the Secretary to acquire property at the affiliated area or 
to assume overall financial responsibility for the operation, 
maintenance, or management of the affiliated area.
    (g) Management Plan.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
which funds are made available to carry out this subsection, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the management entity, shall complete a 
management plan for the affiliated area in accordance with section 
100502 of title 54, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis BERNY-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10209 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 1, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Berny-Estrada, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Berny-Estrada, federal prisoner # 53849-177, was convicted of illegal reentry and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 802. He also argues that his original guidelines range was incorrectly calculated.

*316Amendment 802 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. to App. C, Amendment 802, pp. 146-59 (2016); § 1B1.10(d). Accordingly, the district court was not authorized to reduce Berny-Estrada’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 802, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Berny-Estrada’s challenges to the correctness of his original sentence are not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *316published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  August 26, 2009 |   | Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.                                    |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | By:    | /s/ Earl R. Wait                                                    |   |
|                        |   | Earl R. Wait                                                             |
|                        |   | Vice President of Accounting(Principal Accounting Officer) and Treasurer |
#### John J. MCCARTHY, Appellant v. WARDEN LEWISBURG USP

No. 17-1489

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

May 4, 2017

(Opinion filed: May 9, 2017)

John J. McCarthy, Pro Se

Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: SHWARTZ, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

John J. McCarthy is serving a federal sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. McCarthy has an extensive history of challenging his conviction and aspects of his imprisonment through habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in his district of confinement. See, e.g., McCarthy v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 631 Fed.Appx. 84, 86-87 (3d Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of § 2241 claim relating to loss of good conduct time); McCarthy v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 629 Fed.Appx. 157, 158-60 (3d Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of § 2241 claim regarding transfer to the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) and holding that challenge to the calculation of his sentence was an abuse of the writ); McCarthy v. Warden, USP Lewisburg, 436 Fed.Appx. 68, 69 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that McCarthy could not resort to § 2241 to challenge his conviction on the basis of alleged structural errors).

This appeal concerns another of McCarthy’s § 2241 petitions. In this petition, he briefly referred to his prior challenges to his placement in the SMU, his loss of good conduct time, and alleged structural defects at his trial. He also asserted that the District Court had wrongfully denied his previous challenges, and he asked to “relit-igate all cases dismissed.” He did not assert any new claims or rely on any new facts or new law. The District Court, acting on a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, dismissed McCarthy’s petition as an abuse of the writ. McCarthy appeals. We will affirm for the reasons that the Magistrate Judge and the District Court explained.1

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to LO.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. McCarthy does not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition, see Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It appears that McCarthy was released from federal prison after he filed his petition, but his petition and this appeal are not moot to the extent that he seeks to challenge his conviction (at least) because he is still serving a five-year term of supervised release. See id. at 148.
L.R.M. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160176

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: JUN HO YANG; Ho Soon Hwang Yang, Debtors, *375Jun Ho Yang; Ho Soon Hwang Yang, Appellants, v. Fund Management International, LLC, Appellee.

No. 16-60016

BAP No. 15-1057

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 28, 2017

FILED OCTOBER 03, 2017

Marsha A. Houston, Esquire, Christopher Rivas, Reed Smith LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Appellants.

Steven R. Fox, Steven R Fox, Encino, CA, Mark Edwards, Heller & Edwards, Beverly Hills, CA, for Appellee.

Before: W. FLETCHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,* Chief District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jun Ho Yang and his wife Ho Soon Hwang Yang (collectively, the Yangs) appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to Fund Management International, LLC on its claim that the debt owed by the Yangs is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).

Although the facts to which a party has stipulated remain binding on that party throughout the various phases of the same case, *see Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez,*561 U.S. 661, 676-77, 130 S.Ct. 2971, 177 L.Ed.2d 838 (2010), neither the BAP nor the parties have pointed us to any legal principle (and we are aware of none) providing any basis other than collateral estoppel for holding that facts'stipulated by a party in one case could bind that party in a different cáse. *Cf. Hayhoe v. Cole (In re Cole),*226 B.R. 647, 655 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998).

Under California law, stipulated facts in one case may be given preclusive effect in a different case only “when the parties manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by its terms.” *Cal. State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court,*50 Cal. 3d 658, 664, 268 Cal.Rptr. 284, 788 P.2d 1156 (1990). Here, Jun Ho Yang submitted a declaration that he did not intend the stipulated facts in the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the prior state court action to have a preclusive effect in future proceedings. Such a declaration (even if self-serving) creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ intent. *See Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*784 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the BAP erred in holding that the facts to which the Yangs stipulated were binding on them in their subsequent bankruptcy proceeding as a matter of law.1 The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because we decide on this basis, we do not address whether die Yangs’ stipulations *376amount to a prepetition waiver of discharge-ability or whether the stipulated facts prove that the actions of either or both of the Yangs amounted to fraud for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).
Jay B. DRAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0382

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-124568 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 2, 2008 and December 17, 2008,
relating to the financial statements of Shumate Industries, Inc., which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Shumate Industries, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2007.





/s/
Malone & Bailey, PC





Malone
& Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
Texas





December
18, 2008
Ethan J. HATCHER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6244 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno 

Post Office Building’’. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6244 RFS

1 SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT ANDRES ZERMENO POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boule5 vard in Brownsville, Texas, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres 

12 Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit










EXHIBIT 10.22


SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
WITH PACIFICORP NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 


PacifiCorp's named executive officers (other than its Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, William J. Fehrman) each receive an annual salary and participate in health insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as other employees, as well as certain other compensation and benefit plans described in PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mr. Fehrman is employed by PacifiCorp's parent company, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company ("BHE") and is not directly compensated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp reimburses BHE for the cost of Mr. Fehrman's time spent on PacifiCorp matters, including compensation paid to him by BHE, pursuant to an intercompany administrative services agreement among BHE and its subsidiaries. 


The named executive officers are also eligible to receive a cash incentive award under PacifiCorp's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP"). The AIP provides for a discretionary annual cash award that is determined on a subjective basis and paid in December. In addition to the AIP, the named executive officers are eligible to receive discretionary cash performance awards periodically during the year to reward the accomplishment of significant non-recurring tasks or projects. The named executive officers are participants in PacifiCorp's Long-Term Incentive Partnership Plan ("LTIP"). A copy of the LTIP is incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.


Base salary for named executive officers for PacifiCorp's fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 (excluding Mr. Fehrman) is shown in the following table:


	
					
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary

	 
	 
	 

	Stefan A. Bird
	 
	$
	355,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Cindy A. Crane(1)
	 
	355,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Gary W. Hoogeveen(1)
	 
	315,570
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Nikki L. Kobliha
	 
	224,510
	


	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	 
	 






		
	(1)
	On June 1, 2018, Gary W. Hoogeveen succeeded Cindy A. Crane as Rocky Mountain Power's president.  On November 28, 2018, Gary W. Hoogeveen also succeeded Cindy A. Crane as Rocky Mountain Power's chief executive officer.


Mr. Bird, Mr. Hoogeveen and Ms. Kobliha are also directors of PacifiCorp, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of PacifiCorp. Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Patrick J. Goodman and Ms. Natalie L. Hocken are directors of PacifiCorp as well as employees of BHE, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors of PacifiCorp other than what they receive as employees of BHE.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM WATERMARC FOOD MANAGEMENT CO. FORM 10-Q FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FISCAL
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          87,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  368,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    221,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,009,437
<PP&E>                                       5,726,267 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 167,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,936,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,168,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    329,540
<COMMON>                                     1,189,155
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,046,575)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,936,329
<SALES>                                      7,958,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,958,807
<CGS>                                        2,355,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,603,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             471,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (968,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (968,943)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (968,943)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Victor Manuel TAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15556

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 ***

Filed February 27, 2017

Victor Manuel Tagle, Pro Se

Robert Wilson Freeman, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard *&*Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Nevada state prisoner Victor Manuel Tagle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought on behalf of his minor children for alleged violations of their various constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Johns v. County of San Diego,*114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tagle’s § 1983 action because “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” *Id.*at 877. Because Tagle lacked standing, the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Tagle’s “Motion to Request Court’s/Case’s Records.” *See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,*568 U.S. 398, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1146, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (standing is jurisdictional prerequisite).

We reject as unsupported by the record Tagle’s contentions that the district court discriminated against him based on his financial status and was biased in favor of defendants.

*601We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Tagle’s motions, filed on December 20, 2016, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1395 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1395

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 
 FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 
    homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling 
                                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 ``Housing Financial Literacy Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. DISCOUNT ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR FIRST-TIME 
              HOMEBUYERS WHO COMPLETE FINANCIAL LITERACY HOUSING 
              COUNSELING PROGRAMS.

    The second sentence of subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the comma the following: ``and such 
        program is completed before the mortgagor has signed an 
        application for a mortgage to be insured under this title or a 
        sales agreement''; and
            (2) by striking ``not exceed 2.75 percent of the amount of 
        the original insured principal obligation of the mortgage'' and 
        inserting ``be 25 basis points lower than the premium payment 
        amount established by the Secretary under the first sentence of 
        this subparagraph''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```