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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 622 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction of State and local general sales taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2015 

Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. 

SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. 

NUGENT, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. HECK of Nevada, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. OLSON, Mr. 

ROE of Tennessee, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. 

CLAWSON of Florida, Mr. JOLLY, Mr. HECK of Washington, Mr. GENE

GREEN of Texas, Mr. KILMER, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. CARTER of Texas, 

Mr. MARCHANT, Mrs. NOEM, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. BILIRAKIS, 

Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. FLORES, and Ms. GRANGER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction of State and local general sales 

taxes. 

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


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 622 IH

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION OF 

2 STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL SALES TAXES. 

3 Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘, and be5 fore January 1, 2015’’. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 33 -C V

______________________________

INR E : E X P U

N C T IO N R E Q U E S T B Y B E R T H AD A V IS

On Appea l from the 71st J udicial District Court

Har rison County , Texas Trial Court No. 07-0794

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Pending befor e the Court is an agree d motion to reve rse the tr ial court' s judgme nt and re mand this cause to the tria l court for entry of an order denying e x punction. The trial c ourt had e ntere d an order o f e xp un c ti o n , w h ic hth e T e xa s D e p artm e n t o f Pu b li c Sa f e ty a p p e a le d to th is Co urt. T he parties ha ve agree d that the ca

use should be re verse d and re manded to the trial court for e ntry of an order denying e x punction—and also that the D epar tment w ill not there afte r oppose a "Petition for Nondisclosure" of the re cords of this arre st and defe rre d adjudication community supervision. Rul e 42 .1 (a )( 2) of

the Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s: (a) On Moti on or By Agree ment . The a ppellate c ourt may

dispose of an a pp e a l a s f oll ow s:

. . . (2) By

Agre em ent. I n acc ordanc e with an a g ree ment signe d by th e p art i e s o r

th e i r at t o r n e ys an d f i l e d w i thth e c l e r

k , th e c o urtm ay: (A ) re nd e r j ud g me nt e ff e c tuatin g the pa

rt ie s' a g re e me nts ; (B ) se t a sid e the tr ia l c ou rt ' s ju dg me nt w ith out r e g ard to the merits and r emand the c ase to the tria l co u rt for r endition of judgme nt in accor dance with the agree ments; or (C) abate the appe al and pe rmit p ro cee dings in the tria l court to ef

fec tuate the a g ree ment. In the motion, Appellant and Appe llee re prese nt t h at they have r eac hed an a g ree ment and settled their diffe renc es.3

Th e Court ha s c on sid e re d this c a

us e on the pa rt ie s' mot ion

and c on c lud e s th e mot ion

sh ou ld be grante d. Se eBr ink

e r Te x ., L.P . v . M

un iz , 225 S.W .3d 229, 230 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2 0 06, no pet.). Acc ording ly , we se t aside t he trial court' s judgme nt without reg ard to the m erits and r emand thi s c a us e to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r r e nd iti on

of jud g me nt in ac c or da

nc e wi th the a g re e me nt of the pa rt ie s.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 15, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 16, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 950 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 950

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on submerged land of 
 the outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a coastal State that 
   has declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or 
 production activity in adjacent State waters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 20 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. 
   Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. 
  Feinstein, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Robb, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Lautenberg) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on submerged land of 
 the outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a coastal State that 
   has declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or 
 production activity in adjacent State waters, 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 ``Coastal States Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with respect to 
lands beneath navigable waters of a coastal State a moratorium on oil, 
gas, or other mineral exploration, development, or production 
activities established by statute or by order of the Governor, the 
Secretary shall not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or 
production of minerals on submerged lands of the outer Continental 
Shelf that are seaward of or adjacent to those lands.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1271

LORENZO TRONI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PETER HANLON; LESLIE HANLON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-1634-A)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Troni, Appellant Pro Se. Colin Frazier Bell, Philippe M.

Salomon, WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, New York, New York, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion for default judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny Appellant's motion for sanctions, grant Appellee's

motion to dismiss the case because the appeal is interlocutory, 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7086 

To provide that certain standards relating to traffic safety campaign messages 

shall have no force or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself and Mr. STANTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide that certain standards relating to traffic safety 

campaign messages shall have no force or effect. 

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 ‘‘Highway Administra5 tion Humor Allowance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMPAIGN MESSAGES. 

7 Provision 04 of section 2L.07 of the Manual on Uni8 form Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 

9 as incorporated by reference under the final rule of the 

10 Federal Highway Administration titled ‘‘National StandVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:24 Jan 30, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7086.IH H7086

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7086 IH

1 ards for Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform 

2 Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; Revi3 sion’’ and issued December 19, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 

4 87672), shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6787

LEO BRANDON FARNSWORTH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JANET YELLEN, Secretary of the Treasury , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:21

- cv - 00623

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Leo Brandon Farnsworth, Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6787 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Leo Brandon Farnsworth appeals the dist rict court’s order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his civil action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act , 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671

- 80 (“FTCA”), against Defendant Janet Yellen, the United
States Secretary of the Treasury. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Farnsworth’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive determination that he failed to allege any claims under state law that would be actionable under the FTCA , he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited
to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the de cisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6787 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALUE PLACE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1310

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40044

Conference Calendar

VERLIE LEE HENDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; RISSIE OWENS, Chairwoman,

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; DAN JONES, Special Review

Unit, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CV-383

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Verlie Lee Henderson, Texas prisoner # 199786, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. In that complaint, Henderson challenged the

constitutionality of Texas’ parole procedures. Henderson’s

brief, however, does not address the district court’s

determinations that (1) Fifth Circuit precedent deemed his ex

post facto claim frivolous and (2) his due process challenge was
No. 06-40044

-2-

not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. These issues

are therefore waived. See Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Henderson’s appeal is frivolous and is therefore dismissed. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. We remind Henderson that, after the docketing of the

instant appeal, we imposed the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar in

Henderson v. Enns, No. 05-40279 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2006)

(unpublished). Consequently, Henderson is barred from proceeding

in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Fortress Investment Group LLC (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Daniel H. Mudd, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Daniel H. Mudd     
|Daniel H. Mudd         
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 1, 2011          

This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 4.1

                            CORONADO INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      16929 E. Enterprise Drive, Suite 202
                            Fountain Hills, AZ 85268


                                  June 1, 2002


Coronado Employees and Consultants,

     The  Company's  Board of  Directors  has decided to make  available  to all
employees and consultants,  shares of the Company's common stock at the price of
90% of the lowest  closing  bid price  during  the week prior to the  employee's
payday.

     To participate  in this program,  all you have to do is execute this letter
in the space below,  and indicate the amount of wages you wish to have allocated
to this Plan and the pay period from which your salary  will be  credited.  Your
free-trading shares will be delivered to you within a few days.


                                        Coronado Industries, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Gary R. Smith
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gary R. Smith, President



     --------------------------             --------------------------
     Amount of Wages                        Employee Signature


     --------------------------             --------------------------
     Pay Period From                        Name of Employee
     Which To Be Paid                       (Please Print)
| Entity      Name                                  | Jurisdiction      ofFormation |
|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Cedar      Bayou Fractionators, L.P.              | Delaware                      |
| Downstream      Energy Ventures Co., L.L.C.       | Delaware                      |
| Gulf      Coast Fractionators                     | Texas                         |
| Midstream      Barge Company LLC                  | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Canada Liquids Inc.                    | British      Columbia         |
| Targa      Co-Generation LLC                      | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Downstream GP LLC                      | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Downstream LP                          | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Intrastate Pipeline LLC                | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Liquids GP LLC                         | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Liquids Marketing and Trade            | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Louisiana Field Services LLC           | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Louisiana Intrastate LLC               | Delaware                      |
| Targa      LSNG GP LLC                            | Delaware                      |
| Targa      LSNG LP                                | Delaware                      |
| Targa      MLP Capital LLC                        | Delaware                      |
| Targa      NGL Pipeline Company LLC               | Delaware                      |
| Targa      North Texas GP LLC                     | Delaware                      |
| Targa      North Texas LP                         | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Resources Operating GP LLC             | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Resources Operating LP                 | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Resources Partners Finance Corporation | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Resources Texas GP LLC                 | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Retail Electric LLC                    | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Sparta LLC                             | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Texas Field Services LP                | Delaware                      |
| Targa      Transport LLC                          | Delaware                      |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FELIPE D.J. MILLAN,

 Appellant,

v.

CLAUDIA MILLAN,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00314-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2015DCV0253)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal. We further order 

that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60349

 

GEORGIA RAMSAY, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

OMNIBANK, ET AL.,

Defendants.

OMNIBANK,

Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO.,

Third Party Defendant - Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

 

June 6, 2002

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case we certified a question to the Supreme Court of

Mississippi, asking:

Whether an insurer’s duty to defend under a general

commercial liability policy for injuries caused by

accidents extends, under Mississippi law, to injuries

unintended by the insured but which resulted from
1 Ramsay v. Omnibank, 215 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2000).

2 Id. at 502-03.

3 United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Omnibank, 812 So.2d

196, 197-98 (Miss. 2002).

4 Id. at 202.

2

intentional actions of the insured if those actions were

negligent but not intentionally tortious.1

The details of the case are set out both in our certification2 and

the Mississippi Supreme Court’s answer.3 Since it is now clear

that, under Mississippi law, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

had no duty to defend Omnibank from the underlying suit,4 we must

REVERSE and REMAND for entry of summary judgment in favor of USF&G.

REVERSED and REMANDED.