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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 822 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, 

a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2019 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of 

a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate 

liability insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Firearm Risk Protec5 tion Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 822 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PUR2 CHASE OF FIREARM BY, A PERSON NOT COV3 ERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSUR4 ANCE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to 

9 purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, 

10 the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the pur11 chaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy. 

12 ‘‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm 

13 unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the 

14 purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance pol15 icy. 

16 ‘‘(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a 

17 firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this 

18 subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insur19 ance policy. 

20 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the pur21 chase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States 

22 or any department or agency of the United States, or any 

23 State or any department, agency, or political subdivision 

24 of a State. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 822 IH

1 ‘‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability in2 surance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of 

3 a firearm, a policy that— 

4 ‘‘(A) provides liability insurance covering the 

5 purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of 

6 the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and 

7 ‘‘(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or author8 ized to provide the coverage by the State insurance 

9 regulatory authority for the State in which the pur10 chaser resides.’’. 

11 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924 of such title is amended 

12 by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined 

14 not more than $10,000.’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 

17 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

d0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

138749(63) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138749 

 COA: 283799 

Jackson CC: 06-004643-FH; 

06-004752-FH; 06-004760-FH 

TODD ALAN BINSCHUS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

18, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant the motion for reconsideration.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7562
MICHAEL E. HODGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00707-TSE) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Ranieri, Brian Eugene Bentley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael E. Hodge appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureauof Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries that he received as a result of surgery pe rformed on his right foot. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hodge v. United States , No. 1:05-cv-00707-TSE (E.D. Va. July 11, 2005 & Aug. 11, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 12

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to voluntary school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mrs. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to voluntary school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the

5 Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to

6 all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if rati7 fied by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the sev8 eral States within seven years from the date of its proposal

9 to the States by the Congress:
2

•HJ 12 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

3 prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or

4 other public institutions. No person shall be required by

5 the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.

6 Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe

7 the content of any such prayer.’’

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0356. DONALD L. ADAMS v. THE STATE.

Donald L. Adams was convicted of child molestation and aggravated

molestation. We affirmed his convictions. See Adams v. State, 290 Ga. App. 299

(659 SE2d 711) (2008), overruled in part by Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114, 119 (1) (728 SE2d 189) (2012) (abuse of discretion

standard does not apply to appeals from the denial of a motion to recuse based on the

criteria set forth in USCR 25.3). In 2018, Adams filed a motion to vacate the

judgment of conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied

the motion, and Adams filed the instant appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A post-conviction motion seeking to vacate an allegedly void conviction is not

a valid procedure in a criminal case, and any appeal from the denial or dismissal of

such a motion must be dismissed. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 192 (695 SE2d

244) (2010); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). A direct

appeal may lie from the denial of a motion to correct a void sentence if the defendant

raises a colorable claim that the sentence is void. See Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App.

118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are

limited to claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for

which the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most

typically because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable

penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446)

(2013).

Here, Adams’s motion does not allege that his sentences exceed the maximum

allowed by law. Instead, Adams allegesthat the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter

October 11, 2018
his convictions. This is not a valid void-sentence argument. Accordingly, Adams’s

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.

10/11/2018
AAM-13-233-E March 07, 2013

Exemption No. 10717 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0168

Mr. Ronald E. Carroll Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. 850 Airport Road Lawrenceville, GA 30046

Dear Mr. Carroll:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 14, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. (B lue Ridge Helicopters) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Blue Ridge Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Blue Ridge Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of2

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Blue Ridge Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Blue Ridge Helicopters to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and

limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Blue Ridge Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the Blue Ridge Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 60

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

reunification of the City of Jerusalem.

Relating to the 30th anniversary of the
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 60

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas for 3,000 years Jerusalem has been the focal point

of Jewish religious devotion;

Whereas Jerusalem today is also considered a holy city by

members of the Christian and Muslim faiths;

Whereas there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for three millennia and a Jewish majority in the

city since the 1840’s;
2

•HCON 60 EH

Whereas the once thriving Jewish majority of the historic Old

City of Jerusalem was driven out by force during the

1948 Arab-Israeli War;

Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city

and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens

of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area

controlled by Jordan;

Whereas in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited by Israel during

the conflict known as the Six Day War;

Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city, and

persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full

access to holy sites within the city;

Whereas this year marks the 30th year that Jerusalem has

been administered as a unified city in which the rights

of all faiths have been respected and protected;

Whereas in 1990 the United States Senate and House of

Representatives overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 and House Concurrent Resolution

290 declaring that Jerusalem, the capital of Israel,

‘‘must remain an undivided city’’ and calling on Israel

and the Palestinians to undertake negotiations to resolve

their differences;

Whereas Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel later cited

Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 as having ‘‘helped our

neighbors reach the negotiating table’’ to produce the historic Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, signed in Washington, D.C. on September 13, 1993; and

Whereas the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law

104–45), which became law on November 8, 1995, states

as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem
3

•HCON 60 EH

should remain the undivided capital of Israel: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem

4 and the people of Israel on the 30th anniversary of

5 the reunification of that historic city;

6 (2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must re7 main an undivided city in which the rights of every

8 ethnic and religious group are protected as they

9 have been by Israel during the past 30 years;

10 (3) calls upon the President and the Secretary

11 of State to affirm publicly as a matter of United

12 States policy that Jerusalem must remain the undi13 vided capital of the State of Israel; and

14 (4) urges United States officials to refrain from

15 any actions that contradict this policy.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 11-9872.

#### Allen *v.*Cain, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-10317.

#### Searcy *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 215

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 29, 1998

Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the people of the Co-operative Republic of

Guyana for holding multiparty elections.

Whereas the people of Guyana voted on December 15, 1997,

to re-elect the ruling party, the People’s Progressive

Party/Civic (PPP/Civic);

Whereas the Guyanese people showed their strong belief in

the democratic process by approximately an 88 percent

voter turnout; and
2

HCON 215 RFS

Whereas although international observers such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Commonwealth,

and the International Foundation of Electoral Systems

(IFES) have unanimously agreed, based on their observations on election day, that the polling process was free

and fair, it has been alleged that violations occurred in

the counting process, necessitating an audit of the elections by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM): Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the people of Guyana for

4 holding multiparty presidential elections;

5 (2) supports the audit of the elections by the

6 Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an organization

7 deemed acceptable to all parties;

8 (3) calls on all parties to respect the outcome

9 of the audit as the final decision and make a vow

10 to peace and stability in Guyana; and

11 (4) calls on the newly elected president and the

12 opposition leadership of the Co-operative Republic of

13 Guyana to respect the rule of law and human rights.

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 1998.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19936-19937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07233]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0246; Docket No. 2022-0001; Sequence No. 1]


Submission for OMB Review; General Services Administration 
Regulation; Packing List Clause

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
GSA invites the public to comment on a request to review and approve an 
extension of a previously approved information collection requirement 
regarding the packing list clause.

DATES: Submit comments on or before: May 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for thisinformation 
collection should be sent within 30 days ofpublication of this notice 
towww.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particularinformation 
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public 
Comments'' or by using the searchfunction.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clarence Harrison Jr, Procurement 
Analyst, at telephone 202-227-7051, or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e6f2e0f3f1eeede8e2f8c1e6f2e0afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b7c687a696b74777278625b7c687a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    GSAR clause 552.211-77, Packing List, requires a contractor to 
include a packing list or other suitable document that verifies 
placement of an order and identifies the items shipped. In addition to 
information contractors would normally include on packing lists, the 
identification of cardholder name, telephone number and the term 
``Credit Card'' is required.

B. Annual Reporting Burdens

    Respondents: 14,923.
    Responses per Respondent: 19.
    Total Annual Responses: 283,233.
    Hours per Response: .05.
    Total Burden Hours: 14,161.

C. Public Comments

    A 60-day notice published in the Federal Register at 87 FR 4031 on 
January 26, 2022. No comments were received.
    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the 
information collection documents from the GSA Regulatory Secretariat 
Division,

[[Page 19937]]

by calling 202-501-4755 or emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d0a1e0c1f282a1e282e0d2a3e2c632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c1d5c7d4e3e1d5e3e5c6e1f5e7a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jeffrey A. Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07233 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 104 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 104

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and 
                          for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 104

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(3) of Public 
Law 105-46 is further amended by striking ``November 9, 1997'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``November 10, 1997'', and each provision 
amended by sections 122 and 123 of such public law shall be applied as 
if ``November 10, 1997'' was substituted for ``October 23, 1997''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 9, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 11-10456.

#### Dhaliwal *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Leroy Dexter CAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7238

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Leroy Dexter Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*319PER CURIAM:

Leroy Dexter Cain seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Cain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a federal magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0101

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ZACHARY MICHAEL NIELSEN, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time until June 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0101