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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 777 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 777

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal time to 
     labor organizations to present information relating to labor 
                 organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide equal time to 
     labor organizations to present information relating to labor 
                 organizations, 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 ``Labor Organizations Equal 
Presentation Time Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS PRESENTATIONS.

    Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after the subsection designation; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
    ``(2) If an employer or employer representative addresses the 
employees on the employer's premises or during work hours on issues 
relating to representation by a labor organization, the employees shall 
be assured, without loss of time or pay, an equal opportunity to 
obtain, in an equivalent manner, information concerning such issues 
from such labor organization.
    ``(3) Subject to reasonable regulation by the Board, labor 
organizations shall have--
            ``(A) access to areas in which employees work;
            ``(B) the right to use the employer's bulletin boards, 
        mailboxes, and other communication media; and
            ``(C) the right to use the employer's facilities for the 
        purpose of meetings with respect to the exercise of the rights 
        guaranteed by this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

                      Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from March 31, 1999 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                             24,266
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 206,752
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                        10,358,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                (1,517,236)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                9,560,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                       16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        1,212
<COMMON>                      47,883
<OTHER-SE>                         9,358,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  9,560,523
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   28,370
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 46,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (321,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (321,277)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (321,277)
<EPS-BASIC>                 .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .000


</TABLE>
#### Harold N. GLICKMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20959.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1966.

William J. Bluestein, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van De Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District J udge.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.

Glickman, a bail bondsman, told a federal grand jury that he had received no money from one Zavada, a federal fugitive whose bond had been forfeited. As a matter of fact, he had received $7,500 from a Mrs. Buckner, who was a friend of Zavada and a guarantor to Glickman and another on Zavada’s surety bond. Zavada had passed the money through Mrs. Buckner, who purchased a cashier’s check for $7,500 and gave it to Glickman.

Promptly thereafter, while still before the grand jury, Glickman was confronted with the endorsed cashier’s check. At this juncture, he did the only thing left to do: he told the truth. The truth shows Glickman knew where Mrs. Buckner got the money.

Glickman thereafter was indicted for perjury (there were additional counts). He was convicted of perjury at a trial before a judge, he having waived a jury. We affirm.

We find no merit to the appeal. The assertions here that Glickman was confused when he testified and that the question and answer were not material to the inquiry of the grand jury seem very plausible if one reads only appel*563lant’s brief. A reading of the record dispels any such notions. The contentions are specious at best. Appellant’s counsel is referred to Canon 22 of the canons of professional ethics of the American Bar Association. That canon requires a candid presentation to the court.

A contention that the filing of some jury instructions by the government which were not served, as required by Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon Glickman’s counsel constitutes error amounts, in this case, to nothing. At the time the instructions were filed the government and the court had the case listed as a jury case. The jury subsequently was waived. Although the court did see the proposed jury instructions before deciding the case, counsel for defendant contemporaneously agreed that the instructions were correct. We reverse for prejudicial error; this was not.

This is an unusual case in that ordinarily it takes a little while to expose perjury. That the government was able to do it immediately and precipitate a recantation does not expiate the crime, old fashioned as the crime is.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001005335
<NAME>                                SB Principal PLUS Futures Fund L.P. II

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                      5,455,855
<SECURITIES>                                               11,250,536
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 445,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           17,152,276
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             17,152,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         728,259
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 16,424,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               17,152,276
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             (345,089)
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              162,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (2,423,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (2,423,085)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (31.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0





</TABLE>
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             CATSKILL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)

                                                              Three Months Ended March 31,   Six Months Ended March 31,
                                                              ----------------------------   --------------------------
                                                                    1998         1997             1998        1997
                                                                    ----         ----             ----        ----
<S>                                                              <C>          <C>             <C>          <C>       
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
   Net income applicable to common shares                        $      972   $      943      $    1,930   $    2,009
   Weighted average common shares outstanding                     4,165,075    4,710,177       4,208,213    4,902,587
   Net income per common share - basic                                 $.23         $.20            $.46         $.41
                                                                       ====         ====            ====         ====

NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE - DILUTED
   Net income applicable to common shares                        $      972   $      943      $    1,930   $    2,009
   Weighted average common shares outstanding                     4,165,075    4,710,177       4,208,213    4,902,587
   Dilutive common stock options (1)                                129,025       86,418         128,164       33,118
                                                                 ----------   ----------      ----------   ----------
   Weighted average common shares and
      common share equivalents outstanding                        4,294,100    4,796,595       4,336,377    4,935,705
                                                                 ==========   ==========      ==========   ==========
   Net income per common share - diluted                               $.23         $.20            $.45         $.41
                                                                       ====         ====            ====         ====
</TABLE>



(1) Dilutive common stock options (includes  granted,  but unvested,  restricted
stock under the Company's MRP plan and options granted,  but unexercised,  under
its stock  option plan) are based on the  treasury  stock  method using  average
market price.  The treasury stock method  recognizes the use of assumed proceeds
upon the exercise of options, and the amount of unearned compensation attributed
to future services under the Company's  restricted stock plan, including any tax
benefits,  to purchase the  Company's  common stock at the average  market price
during the period.

                                       26
Apalachicola River and Bay Facts 

The Apalachicola River basin includes the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (ANERR). 

The second largest of 25 reserves in the National Reserve System. The major objectives of the Reserve 

are research and education. 

The River & Bay Watershed is one of the most important bird habitats in the southeastern U.S. 

More than 360 marine mollusks are found in the watershed, many of these are endangered. 

The Apalachicola River basin stands out as one of the last ecosystems that retains much of its incredible 

natural resources. 

131 species of fresh and estuarine fish live in the Apalachicola River, more than any other river in 

Florida. 

The Apalachicola River basin contains 127 of the very rarest species of plants and vertebrates and has the 

highest density of amphibians and reptiles in North American, north of Mexico. 

The Apalachicola drainage basin boasts more than 1300 species of plants, 103 of which are threatened or 

endangered. 

More than 50 species of mammals, including the threatened Florida black bear, the endangered West 

Indian Manatee, the Indiana bat, and the gray bat are found in the Apalachicola drainage basin. 

More than 1300 plant species, 40 amphibians species and 80 species of reptiles live within the 

Apalachicola River basin, this is the highest diversity of amphibians and reptiles in the US and Canada. 

The Apalachicola River basin has more than 180 species of fish and the area is a tremendous spawning 

and nursery ground for important commercial and sports fish species. 

Endangered or potentially endangered species such as the Atlanta sturgeon, blue stripped shiner, shoal 

bass and Suwannee bass are found in the Apalachicola River basin. 

The Apalachicola River is the fresh water source for the Apalachicola Bay, a pristine and productive 

estuary of major economic and ecological importance to the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

The Apalachicola Bay is one of the most productive estuaries in the northern hemisphere. The 

productivity of the bay is dependent on the Apalachicola River to carry fresh water and essential nutrients 

down stream to feed estuarine organisms. 

The Apalachicola Bay provides 90% of Florida’s oysters and over 10% of the total US production. 

The Apalachicola Bay is a major nursery for penaeid shrimp, blue crabs, and many fish species including 

striped bass, sturgeon, grouper, red fish, speckled trout, and flounder. 

Harvest of shrimp, crab, fish, and oysters is the driving force in the economy of Franklin County.
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , No. 05-50375

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v. CR-03-00728-PA-01 Central District of 

#  M ALIK S MITH , California, Defendant-Appellant. Los Angeles
ORDER 

# 

Filed June 25, 2009

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Mary M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

A majority of the panel has voted to deny the remaining requests in Appellant’s Petition for Additional Rehearing By Limited En Banc Panel not addressed in the Order Amending Opinion, filed on April 9, 2009.

The requests in Appellant’s Petition not addressed in the Order Amending Opinion are DENIED

.

7961PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04798]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-122, OMB Control No. 3235-0111]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form T-2

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form T-2 (17 CFR 269.2) is a statement of eligibility of an 
individual trustee under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. The 
information is used to determine whether the individual is qualified to 
serve as a trustee under the indenture. Form T-2 takes approximately 9 
hours per response to prepare and is filed by 9 respondents. We 
estimate that 25% of the 9 burden hours (2 hours per responses) is 
prepared by the filer for a total reporting burden of 18 hours (2 hours 
per response x 9 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication by May 9, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John 
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#29797b6876644840454b4651695a4c4a074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b7b796a74664a42474944536b584e48054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04798 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,072-01

EX PARTE DEJUAN ANTHONY JORDAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20160D04054-243-1 IN THE 243RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted in Indiana for sexual

battery. Later, Applicant was convicted in Texas for failing to register as a sex offender and

sentenced to imprisonment. 

The District Attorney for El Paso County notified Applicant that the conviction was

erroneous because the Texas Department of Public Safety had determined that the elements of the

Indiana sexual battery conviction were not substantially similar to any Texas offense. Thus,

Applicant was not required to register in Texas as a sex offender under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code
2

of Criminal Procedure. The habeas record shows that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance

for failing to investigate to discover this fact. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 20160D04054 in the 243rd District Court of

El Paso County is set aside.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: December 19, 2018

Do not publish
#### Donald Wayne MIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.

No. 17-6290

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Donald Wayne Mims, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*699PER CURIAM:

Donald Wayne Mims seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mims has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*