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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 196

Relative to the death of the Reverend Richard Halverson, late the Chaplain

of the United States Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 29, 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mr. BOND, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWN, Mr.

BRYAN, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr.

CHAFEE, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONRAD, Mr.

COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DODD, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. EXON, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FEINGOLD,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FORD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr.

HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. HELMS, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. JOHNSTON,

Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERREY, Mr.

KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KYL, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN,

Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr.

MCCONNELL, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. NUNN, Mr. PELL, Mr.

PRESSLER, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr.

ROTH, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SIMON, Mr.

SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr.

THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WARNER, and Mr.

WELLSTONE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of the Reverend Richard Halverson,

late the Chaplain of the United States Senate.
2

SRES 196 ATS

Whereas the Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson became the

60th Senate Chaplain on February 2, 1981, and faithfully served the Senate for 14 years as Senate Chaplain;

Whereas Dr. Halverson for more than 40 years was an associate in the International Prayer Breakfast Movement

and Chairman of the Board of World Vision and President of Concerned Ministries;

Whereas Dr. Halverson was the author of several books, including ‘‘A Day at a Time’’, ‘‘No Greater Power’’, ‘‘We

the People’’, and ‘‘Be Yourself . . . and God’s’’; and

Whereas Dr. Halverson was graduated from Wheaton College

and Princeton Theological Seminary, and served as a

Presbyterian minister throughout his professional life, including being the senior pastor at Fourth Presbyterian

Church of Bethesda, Maryland: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson, late the Chaplain

4 of the United States Senate; be it further

5 Resolved, That the Secretary transmit an enrolled

6 copy thereof to the family of the deceased; and be it fur7 ther

8 Resolved, That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

9 today, it recess or adjourn as a further mark of respect

10 to the memory of the deceased.

Æ
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 14, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 0981 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 1694

________________ 

### Juan D. Whipple , Appellant,

vs. 

### Crystal Ferguson Dawson , et al., Appellee s

.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Rosa C. Figarola , Judge. Juan D. Whipple, in proper person. William C. Robinson , for appellee s

.
Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE , JJ. PER CURIAM.
A ppellant’s appeal from the order determining homestead status of2 real property is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the final order was not timely appealed. See Steele v. Brown , 197 So. 3d 106, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that order determining homestead status “constituted an appealable, final order”). The remaining orders on appeal are affirmed. See Rhodes v. State , 986 So. 2d 501, 513 (Fla. 2008) (“ To be preserved, the issue or legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court. ”) (alteration in original); John Moriarty & Assocs. of Fla., I nc. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp. , 272 So. 3d 464, 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“ In the absence of a transcript of the lower court proceedings, and finding no legal error apparent on the face of the order

. . . we cannot conclude the trial court erred in rend ering the order under review and therefore affirm. ”); N & D Holding, Inc. v. Town of Davie , 17 So. 3d 819, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“ It is the appellant ’ s duty to point out where in the record the alleged error can be substantiated. ”). Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel DIAZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10347 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 29, 2017

Russell Lorfing, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*277Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After Defendant-Appellant Victor. Manuel Diaz-Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, the district court varied upward from the guidelines range and sentenced him to an 18-month term of imprisonment and a one-year period of supervised release. Diaz-Gomez contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the district court’s balancing of the sentencing factors involved a clear error of judgment..

We review sentences for procedural error and substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. *United States v. Johnson,*619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2010); *see also United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the arguments presented by Diaz-Gomez and the Government and pertinent portions of the record on appeal, we defer to the district court’s determination of an appropriate sentence in this case. *See United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008). The 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.
### SERVED: May 15, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF MULTI- AERO, INC. FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2013- 0718
HEARING NOTICE '.-**~**

i__·_-:,

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thattestimony and evidence will be heard and considered onJuly 22, 23,24 and 25, 2014, inclusive, in the Courtroom 9.170, Thomas F. Eagleton, U.S. Courthouse; 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day
.. Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings1may beforwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service2•

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. For additional information see: http://dms.dot.gov. 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes ofthe decisions, the Rules ofPractice, as well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: http://www.faa.gov/abdut!office org/headquarters offices/age/pol adjudicationlagc400/civil penalty/: see also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgilt/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=!ecfrbrowse/Titlel4114tab 02.tpl. In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database. For additional information, see the Web site.SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Shane Storz, DirectorofOperations Multi-Aero, Inc., Respondent 12300 Old Tesson Road, Suite 200F St. Louis, MO 63128 Jared M. Allen, Respondent's Counsel The Aviation Law Firm One Research Court, Suite 450

. Rockville, MD 20850

TEL: 301-294-8550 FAX: 301-294-2525 ONE COPY

David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel FDMS No. FAA-2013-0718 (Civil Penalty Action)

Directorate Counsel, Office ofRegional Counsel, Central Region, ACE-7 Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust Street, DOTBuilding, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WJOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
#### Melissa Jane LEE Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1600

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 27, 2017

Filed: December 1, 2017

*455Melissa Jane Lee, Pro Se

Daniel B. Boatright, Jason N.W. Plowman, Littler *&*Mendelson,’ Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Melissa Lee appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action claiming employment discrimination and retaliation. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated in the district court’s order, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review); and that the district court did not err in not recusing itself sua sponte, see United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 858 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain error review).

Accordingly, we affirm., See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH

C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60172

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROGER WILLIAMS SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. CRD-91-21-S-O

__________________________________________

October 19, 2000

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roger William Sims appeals the district court’s ruling on his “Motion for

Clarification of Amended Judgment,” by which he urged the court to clarify its 1997

resentencing order as it related to the imposition of a $12,000 fine and interest thereon.

At the original sentencing in 1992, the court imposed a $15,000 fine but indicated that

interest was waived. The district court subsequently made clear, in its ruling on a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 1997, that Sims was required to pay the fine and the interest.1 United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).

2 Id .; § 2255.

3 F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 36.

4 Early , 27 F.3d at 142.

2 Sims’ “Mot ion for Clarification” is a collateral challenge to the imposition of

interest in 1997; the district court’s ruling thereon is a denial of that challenge on the

merits. Such a collateral attack finds no authorization in law; the relief Sims seeks is

not available under any federal statute or rule providi ng for postconviction relief. 1

Relief was not available to Sims under F E D

. R. C RIM

. P. 35, 18 U.S .C. § 3742, 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), or 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 2 T h e district court’s clarification order

confirmed that no “clerical mistake” was made. 3 A lthough the district court effectively

denied Sims relief on the merits, we now AFFIRM on the alternative ground that the

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. 4 AFFIRMED.
#### Luis Ramon MORALES-SANTANA, AKA Luis Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.*

No. 11-1252-ag

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 19, 2017

*41FOR PETITIONER: Stephen A. Broome, Jacob Waldman, Ellyde Roko, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Imran R. Zaidi, Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent. •

*

 Judge Jed S. Ralcoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Following our decision in Morales-Santana v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2015), the Government appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s judgment in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. Sessions v. Morales-Santana, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1678, 198 L.Ed.2d 150 (2017). The Supreme Court held that while “[t]he gender-based distinction infecting §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a) and (c) ... violates the equal protection principle,” extending favorable treatment would convert § 1409(e)’s *exception*for unwed U.S.-citizen mothers into the main rule displacing §§ 1401(a)(7) and 1409(a). Id. at 1700-01. “Section 1401(a)(7)’s longer physical-presence requirement, applicable to a substantial majority of children born abroad to one U.S.citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, therefore, must hold sway.” Id. at 1702.

In view of the Supreme Court’s decision, we agree with the BIA’s determination that under the circumstances of this case, Morales-Santana is not a United States citizen. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 4

To elect the Honorable Strom Thurmond of the State of South Carolina,

to be President pro tempore of the Senate of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To elect the Honorable Strom Thurmond of the State of

South Carolina, to be President pro tempore of the Senate of the United States.

1 Resolved, That the Honorable Strom Thurmond, a

2 Senator from the State of South Carolina, be and he is

3 hereby elected President of the Senate pro tempore, to

4 hold office during the pleasure of the Senate, in accord5 ance with rule I, paragraph 1, of the Standing Rules of

6 the Senate.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6511
DAVEY JAMES REEDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusGEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENEM. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-96-336-AM) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Davey James Reedy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint because he failed to allege that he suffered a deprivation of a constitutional right. 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 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealedis neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA


### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

In the Interest of H.M.

- T

. , a child

.

S.T.

,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM

,

Appellees

.

No. 2D 2 024

- 0170

June 5 , 202 4

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lisa D. Campbell

, Judge.

Jonathan E. Hackworth of Hackworth Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach , for Appellee Department of Children and F amilies.

Douglas J. Glaid of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office , Defending Best Interests Project, Fort Lauderdale ; and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz

, Senior Attorney

, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian

ad Litem.

PER CURIAM

.

Affirmed.2

SILBERMAN

, LaROSE

, and SMITH , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 128

Prohibiting the use of United States ground forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 5, 1995

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Prohibiting the use of United States ground forces in BosniaHercegovina.

Whereas article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution

provides that Congress shall have the sole power to declare war; and

Whereas the Senate adopted S. Res. 330 on August 11,

1992, which stated that it was the sense of the Senate

that no United States military personnel shall be introduced into combat or potential combat situations without

clearly defined objectives and sufficient resources to

achieve those objectives: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the President is not authorized to use

2 the United States ground forces in Bosnia-Hercegovina

3 unless—
2

SRES 128 IS

1 (1) the use of United States ground forces in

2 Bosnia-Hercegovina is authorized in advance by

3 Congress; and

4 (2) the deployment of United States ground

5 forces into Bosnia-Hercegovina is vital to the na6 tional security interests of the United States (includ7 ing the protection of American citizens in Bosnia8 Hercegovina), there is not sufficient time to seek

9 and receive congressional authorization, and the

10 President reports as soon as practicable to Congress

11 after the initiation of the deployment, but in no case

12 later than 48 hours after the initiation of the deploy13 ment.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 260 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 260

To express the sense of the Senate that livestock producers who are not 
eligible for emergency livestock feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, 
 and who have suffered feed losses due to drought, flooding, or other 
  natural disasters in 1996, should receive special consideration for 
   assistance from commodities or the sale of commodities currently 
available in the disaster reserve established under section 813 of the 
           Agricultural Act of 1970, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 1996

Mr. Domenici (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Gramm, Mrs. Hutchison, and 
Mr. Pressler) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To express the sense of the Senate that livestock producers who are not 
eligible for emergency livestock feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, 
 and who have suffered feed losses due to drought, flooding, or other 
  natural disasters in 1996, should receive special consideration for 
   assistance from commodities or the sale of commodities currently 
available in the disaster reserve established under section 813 of the 
           Agricultural Act of 1970, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that livestock producers who do not 
qualify for emergency livestock feed assistance for the 1996 crop year, 
but have incurred feed losses in 1996 due to drought, flooding, or 
other natural disasters, should receive special consideration for 
assistance from commodities or the sale of commodities currently 
available in the disaster reserve established under section 813 of the 
Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a). A livestock producer should 
be eligible to receive the assistance during the period beginning May 
1, 1996, and ending not sooner than August 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```