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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 725 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 725

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain authorities 
    relating to the provision of community-based health care by the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 25 (legislative day, April 24), 1995

 Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dorgan, and 
Mr. Wellstone) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend certain authorities 
    relating to the provision of community-based health care by the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 ``Veterans Community-Based Care Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES RELATING TO COMMUNITY-BASED 
              CARE.

    (a) Alcohol or Drug Dependence and Abuse.--Section 1720A(e) of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``December 31, 
1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 2000''.
    (b) Noninstitutional Alternatives to Nursing Home Care.--Section 
1720C(a) of such title is amended by striking out ``September 30, 
1995,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 2000,''.
    (c) Community-Based Residential Care for Homeless Chronically 
Mentally Ill Veterans and Other Veterans.--Section 115(d) of the 
Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988 (38 U.S.C. 1712 note) is 
amended by striking out ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``December 31, 2000''.
    (d) Demonstration Program of Compensated Work Therapy.--Section 
7(a) of Public Law 102-54 (38 U.S.C. 1718 note) is amended by striking 
out ``fiscal years 1991 through 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, 
2000''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ENHANCED-USE LEASES OF REAL 
              PROPERTY.

    Section 8169 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``December 31, 2000''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Daniel N. Bass, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Fortress Investment Group LLC; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|April 28, 2017 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel N. Bass     
|(Date)         |  |  |  | Daniel N. Bass         
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1713. ISRAEL MENDEZ-MENDEZ v. THE STATE.

In 2015, Israel Mendez-Mendez pleaded guilty to child molestation and was

sentenced to 20 years, to serve 12 in confinement and the remainder on probation. In

2020, Mendez-Mendez filed a “Motion to Correct Void Sentence.” The trial court

entered an order denying this motion, and Mendez-Mendez filed a notice of appeal.

We lack jurisdiction.

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217, n. 1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void

sentence generally are limited to claims that . . . the law does not authorize that

sentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the

applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748

SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is within the statutory range of punishment, it is

not void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

Mendez-Mendez argued that his child molestation sentence was void because

the trial court failed to consider whether he qualified for a deviation below the

mandatory minimum for that offense. In Jackson v. State, 338 Ga. App. 509 (790

SE2d 295) (2016), however, we held that “[t]he failure to deviate – or consider

deviating – below a minimum sentence does not render the sentence one that the law

does not allow, so long as the sentences imposed remain within the range of

punishments permitted by law.” Id. at 510 (punctuation omitted). Mendez-Mendez’s

twenty-year sentence for child molestation fell within the applicable range for that

May 04, 2020
offense. See OCGA § 16-6-4 (b). Thus, he has not raised a colorable void-sentence

claim, and the denial of his motion is not subject to direct appeal. See Burg, 297 Ga.

App. at 120. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/04/2020
NO. 07-07 -019 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y30, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JUAN DANIEL MORALES , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 2 ND DI ST RI CT COU RT OF DE AF SMI T H CO UNT Y; NO . C R- 061- 107; HO NO RA BLE H . BRYAN POF F, JR ., JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing pl eas of gu il ty , Ap pel lan t, Juan Dan iel M orales, w as conv icted o f one co u n t o f a g g ra v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t a n d o n e c o u n t o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t a n d s e n t e n c e d to tw enty y ears c onfinement. The Tr ial Cour t’ s Cer ti ficat ionof Def

endant’ s Ri ght to Appe al re flect s t hat A ppel lan t ag re ed to a p le a b a rg ain and has no r ig ht of appea l. TheThe thi rt iet h day fell on Sunday , Apr il 22, 2007, but was extended to t he foll ow ing 1 day pursuantto Rul e 4.1 (a ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . 2 certif ication f urthe r ref lects tha t App ellanthas w aived his ri ght of app eal. T he trial c o u rt impos ed App ell ant’ s s entenc e on Ma rc h 23, 2007. N o motion for newtri al w as filed. On Ma y 14, 200 7, A ppel lan t, proceed ing pro s e, fil ed a “ Mot ionf or Not ic e of A ppe al. ” W e dis mis s for

w ant o f jur is dicti on. This C our

t’ s a ppel lat e j ur is dicti on i n a c ri minal ca se is i n v oked by a t imel y fil ed noti ce of appeal
. Ol

iv o v . St ate , 918 S.W .2d 5 19, 5 22 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1996)
. W here, as here, no moti on for new tr ial w as filed , t he notic e w as due w it hin thir ty day s after t he dat e sent ence w as imp osed . T ex. R. App . P. 26. 2(a)(1). A bsen t a time ly f iled no tice of

app eal, a c our t of appeal s d oes not o btain juri sdi cti on to address the meri ts of the appe al in a cr imi nal ca se and c an ta ke no acti on ot her than to dis miss th e a p peal for want o f jur is dicti on. Sl

aton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 2 08, 2 10 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1998)
. The tr ial co u rti mposed Appel lan t’ s s entenc e on Ma rc h 23, 2007, se tti ng the deadl ine in w hic h to file a noti ce of ap peal at M onday , Ap ri l 23, 2 007. The Tex as Rul es 1 of Appe llate Proce dure provi de a f if tee n day extension in w hich to f ile a no tice of app eal. T ex. R . App . P. 26.3. How ever, App ellant ’s not ice, w hich was f iled on May 14, 20 07, also failed to mee t tha t dea dline. Rule 2 o f t h e T e xas Rules of

Appe llate Proce dure , w hich aut horizes this Court to suspen d the ope ration of a rule for good cau se, do es no t perm it the s uspen si on of the ti me l imi t for per fecti ng an a ppeal . Sl

aton , 981 S. W .2d a t 209 -1 0.3

Con seq uentl y , t his pur por ted a ppeal i s d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not p ubl is h.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         9
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                        2,734
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 140,833
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       10,059
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         10,092
<LOANS>                                     125,415
<ALLOWANCE>                                   1,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              284,238
<DEPOSITS>                                  199,256
<SHORT-TERM>                                  9,415
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           4,398
<LONG-TERM>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         57
<OTHER-SE>                                   71,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              284,238
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               7,542
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             6,951
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                539
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             15,032
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            6,408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            6,482
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         8,550
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   225
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               15
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               3,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4,895
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    4,895
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.19
<LOANS-NON>                                     952
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               2,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              1,833
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   230
<RECOVERIES>                                     34
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             1,862
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          1,018
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         844
        

</TABLE>
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Zimbabwe

On March 6, 2003, by Executive Order 13288, the President declared a national emergency and blocked the property of certain persons, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions. These actions and policies had contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, to politically motivated violence and intimidation in that country, and to political and economic instability in the southern African region.

On November 22, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13391 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 by ordering the blocking of the property of additional persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.

On July 25, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13469, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288 and authorized the blocking of the property of additional persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.

The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on March 6, 2003, and the measures adopted on that date, on November 22, 2005, and on July 25, 2008, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond March 6, 2022. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2022-04879

Billing code 3395-F2-P
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ( Form S-8 No. 333-141827 and Form S-8 No. 333-185892), pertaining to the Triangle Capital Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated March 6, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial highlights and Schedule 12-14 of Triangle Capital Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Triangle Capital Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2012.








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


March 6, 2013
#### Michael S. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sheriff Greg HAMILTON; Deputy Parker; Sergeant Harrison; Deputy Burkhart, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-50258 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 8, 2017

Michael S. Alexander, Pro Se

Laurie R. Eiserloh, Anthony J. Nelson, Assistant County Attorney, County Attorney’s Office for the County of Travis, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael S. Alexander, Texas prisoner # 1929892, filed a pro se civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four employees at the Travis County Correctional Complex (TCCC) regarding two incidents that occurred while he was held there as a pretrial detainee. He now appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and dismissal of his claims with prejudice. He *382also requests appointment of counsel on appeal. His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

On appeal, Alexander argues that (1) Sheriff Greg Hamilton was liable for his failure to supervise the other prison officials adequately, (2) TCCC’s custom and policy caused the alleged violations, (3) Deputy Burkhart and Deputy Parker retaliated against him, (4) the defendants’ refusal to permit him to shower for five days created unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and (5) Deputy Burkhart and Deputy Parker used excessive force against him.

To the extent that Alexander sued the defendants in their official capacities, we treat those claims as a suit against Travis County. Similarly, Alexander’s suit against Hamilton is based on his role as a supervisory official and not based on Hamilton’s personal involvement in the alleged violations, Due to Alexander’s failure to provide any specific facts showing that an official custom or policy caused the alleged constitutional violations, he cannot establish liability for either Travis County or Hamilton. *See James v. Harris County,*577 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir. 2009); *Thompkins v. Belt,*828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987).

Alexander’s retaliation claim fails due to the lack of direct evidence of retaliatory motive or a chronology of events from which retaliation could plausibly be inferred. *See*Woods *v. Smith,*60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995), Similarly, Alexander’s claim regarding his alleged inability to shower for five days fails because he has not shown that any of the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in that regard. *See Hare v. City of Corinth,*74 F.3d 633, 647-48 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover, examination of the summary-judgment evidence shows that Alexander cannot show that any of the defendants used excessive force under the circumstances in either of the incidents at issue. *See Kingsley v. Hendrickson,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473-74, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1


<TABLE>

                               GENSYM CORPORATION
      EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

<CAPTION>
(In thousands, except net income per share)                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                     MARCH 31,
                                                                              1997               1996
                                                                             -----              -----
<S>                                                                          <C>                <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding during the period                 6,221              5,333

Shares issuable from assumed exercise of options, computed in
      accordance with the treasury stock method                                183                398
                                                                             -----              -----

Weighted average common and common equivalent shares                         6,404              5,731
                                                                             =====              =====

Net income                                                                   $  66              $ 333
                                                                             =====              =====

Net income per share                                                         $0.01              $0.06
                                                                             =====              =====
</TABLE>





                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,259
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,375
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,207
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,946
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            28,030
<LOANS>                                        186,976
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,673
<DEPOSITS>                                     198,904
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,051
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,639
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 242,673
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,366
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,062
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   178
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,606
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,076
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,180
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,426
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,325
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,325
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,210
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   8.294
<LOANS-NON>                                        623
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   380
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,248
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,165
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,171
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,171
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2004240EN.01001701.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/17

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2370/2002 of 20 December 2002 establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 358 of 31 December 2002
  )

On page 58, in Article 6, paragraph 1:

for:

‘1.   Member States shall submit their applications for the payment of the expenditure by 30 June 2004.’,

read:

‘1.   Member States shall submit their applications for the reimbursement of the expenditure by 30 June 2004.’.

On page 58, in Article 7:

for:

‘For the period 2004 to 2006 the necessary funds for financing the emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels ... ’,

read:

‘For the period 2004 to 2006 the necessary financial resources for financing the emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels ... ’.

---