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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 886 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      January 16, 2020.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
886) entitled ``An Act to direct the Attorney General to establish and 
carry out a Veteran Treatment Court Program.'', do pass with the 
following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
      following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Treatment Court Coordination 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that veterans treatment courts are a 
successful program aimed at helping veterans charged with nonviolent 
crimes receive the help and the benefits for which the veterans are 
entitled.

SEC. 3. VETERAN TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney 
General shall establish and carry out a Veteran Treatment Court Program 
to provide grants and technical assistance to court systems that--
            (1) have adopted a Veterans Treatment Court Program; or
            (2) have filed a notice of intent to establish a Veterans 
        Treatment Court Program with the Secretary.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Veterans Treatment Court Program 
established under subsection (a) is to ensure the Department of Justice 
has a single office to coordinate the provision of grants, training, 
and technical assistance to help State, local, and Tribal governments 
to develop and maintain veteran treatment courts.
    (c) Programs Included.--The Veterans Treatment Court Program 
established under subsection (a) shall include the grant programs 
relating to veterans treatment courts carried out by the Attorney 
General pursuant to sections 2991 and 3021 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10651, 10701) or any other 
provision of law.
    (d) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations 
to carry out this section.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                H.R. 886

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12c

                                 PSEG POWER LLC
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   For the Year Ended December 31,
                                                  --------------------------------
                                                  2003   2002   2001   2000   1999
                                                 -----   ----   ----   ----   ----
<S>                                              <C>     <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-Tax Income from Continuing Operations        $ 800   $781   $644   $521   $807
Fixed Charges                                      225    219    213    209    126
Capitalized Interest                              (109)   (95)   (63)   (11)    (2)
Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements               --     --     --     --    (12)
                                                 -----   ----   ----   ----   ----
Earnings                                         $ 916   $905   $794   $719   $919
                                                 =====   ====   ====   ====   ====

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                 $ 223   $217   $206   $209   $114
Preferred Securities Dividends
   Requirements of Subsidiaries                     --     --     --     --     12
Interest Factor in Rentals                           2      2      7     --     --
                                                 -----   ----   ----   ----   ----
Total Fixed Charges                              $ 225   $219   $213   $209   $126
                                                 =====   ====   ====   ====   ====

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                4.07   4.13   3.73   3.44   7.29
                                                 =====   ====   ====   ====   ====
</TABLE>

(A)  The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
     operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to
     exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B)  Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
     amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
     interest implicit in rentals.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7741
FRED SHORES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versusALFRED W. BETHEA, Assistant United States Attorney; JOHN H. HARE, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2716-6-21-AK) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred W. Bethea, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina; John H. Hare, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to obtain a document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 and dismissinghis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate j udge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shores v. Hare , No. CA-96-2716-6-21-AK (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 1996). 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
#### Amy COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LB LENDING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Macoy Capital Partners, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56752

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

*624Tracy Timothy Woo, Attorney, Law Offices of Tracy T. Woo, Palm Springs, CA, Plaintiff-Appellant

Casey Z. Donoyan, -Frandzel Robins Bloom *&*Csato, L.C., Los Angeles, CA, Ian Scott Landsberg, Esquire, Attorney, Landsberg Law, APC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Amy Cox appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action alleging Truth in Lending Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. *Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles,*834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Cox failed to establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits. *See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,*555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth factors for issuance of a preliminary injunction); *see also*15 U.S.C. § 1603(1); 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(a)(1) (loans made for business or commercial purposes are exempt from the provisions of TILA); *Garcia v. Google, Inc.,*786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (where a plaintiff fails to show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, the court need not consider the remaining three *Winter*factors).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cox’s contention that the district court applied the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction.

We do not consider issues raised or evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Frank W. Kells and Growers’ Loan & Guaranty Co. v. W. M. Davidson.

153 So. 606.

Opinion Filed March 20, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied April 10, 1934.

*300*Wilson & Boswell,*for Appellants;

*H. M. Hampton,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This appeal is from a portion of an order or decree excluding averments of usury as a defense in a foreclosure proceeding. It appears to this Court that in order to properly adjudicate all of the alleged equities, testimony should be taken as to the asserted usury as well as to other matters of defense; therefore, the decree or order appealed from is reversed for appropriate proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2022326EN.01001202.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 28 June 2022 — MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. v Mercedes-Benz Group AG

(Case C-425/22)

(2022/C 326/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

Defendant: Mercedes-Benz Group AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where a parent company brings an action for damages in respect of the anti-competitive conduct of another company in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that conduct solely by its subsidiaries, does the registered office of the parent company determine the forum of jurisdiction, as the place where the harmful event occurred for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels Ia Regulation’)? (1)

| 2. | Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the fact that, at the time of the purchases at issue in the proceedings, not all the subsidiaries belonged to the parent company’s group of companies relevant for the purposes of the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL 

SIGN IN SHEET FOR MEETING 

Thursday/ September 12/ 2013 

Room 863 Hersch/er Building 

122 W. 25th/ Cheyenne/ WY 82001 

zation !Address (Company, Organization, or Residence) I Phone Number 

lzJ(9o (/ .. Hnl- ~,. .. ~-~. S.e-t.-tcJ·p, w~ 1[,7\-Si.'L"f 

1.)2 UJ . )~.h Si· Ct-+~YGNNE. I).) 'f 17/-3 7'-1' 

l \ t't1 ~ ~~ 

II 77?-ccOW 

(, 

(I 

1\ ~ r r ' ->l 1 

v V' vrl 

r r ,...... r• J{~ T "-'') ? t:l/ 

,, 

------------------~

~~~

~~~~

~~~~--~~~~

----------+-~~ ~~~__, 4-

~~c..L.t,v 177-?--'11 

'L.£ 111-'13€-0 

35 . 3c-r .-e72..21b2 

2 OCi - ~ le!. t:i , :Z.o-:2 y- 

~~LL------~

~~~ ~~~--~--

--------

~~~~~~

~ 

_..><::-- ' ' ./ ...- . ~ 
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL 

SIGN IN SHEET FOR MEETING 

Thursday, September 12, 2013 

Room 863 Herschler Building 

122 W. 25th, Cheyenne, WY 82001 

zation Address (Company, Organization, or Residence) 

cu a¥~"'"L--

~1J {a.~?ta Chr.-1~ C)f: 'N l11 cpq_ t;CI ~ 

IO ~ SGr (;~ f4c~.rw ()Jy o2~'L 

j_ 'l_?_ w. t_ st!:-s ,J. . Cht e/lll~ WY 'l 7.-o~JL. 

/ 

\7--z- w.~<&\. 0_\fs. w'-1 C{ 1..-(;)c.) 2 

I 

J 

.. 

Phone Number 

?77-?s~K 

CJL,-ro a3 ?)c;2z 

-so 7 Frz 3t:ry; 

~£)..-9(}9 -~-:L?_l 307-77 7-7o'-fk> 

'601- 171- 7740
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00353-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court

of Tarrant County (322-568527-15)

April 18, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                          68,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  688,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,154
<INVENTORY>                                    400,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,219,897
<PP&E>                                         352,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                 193,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,815,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          815,208
<BONDS>                                        373,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          195,151
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,540
<OTHER-SE>                                     426,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,815,670
<SALES>                                      2,415,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,821,881
<CGS>                                        2,281,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,582,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               429,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (213,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (76,328)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (141,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (141,968)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.15)


</TABLE>
No. 11-1255.

#### Suffolk County, New York, et al. *v.*Field Day, LLC, fka New York Music Festival, LLC, et al.

C. A. *9142d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-10434.

#### Osika *v.*Avazos, Acting Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                  PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP INCORPORATED
                            SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      State of
Name                                                 Ownership %   Incorporation
----                                                 -----------   -------------
<S>                                                      <C>         <C>
Public Service Electric and Gas Company...........       100         New Jersey
PSEG Power LLC....................................       100          Delaware
PSEG Fossil LLC...................................       100          Delaware
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.................       100          Delaware
PSEG Energy Holdings LLC..........................       100         New Jersey
PSEG Resources LLC................................       100         New Jersey
PSEG Global LLC...................................       100         New Jersey
PSEG Global International Holdings LLC............       100          Delaware
</TABLE>

     The remaining subsidiaries of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
are not significant subsidiaries as defined in Regulation S-X.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21


                             EQUISTAR CHEMICALS, LP
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                          Type of Entity            Jurisdiction
----                                                          --------------            ------------
<S>                                                           <C>                       <C>
Equistar Mont Belvieu                                         corporation               Delaware
Equistar Polyproylene, LLC                                    limited liability         Delaware
Equistar Funding Corporation                                  corporation               Delaware
Equistar Chemicals de Mexico, Inc.                            corporation               Delaware
PD Glycol                                                     corporation               Texas
Equistar Funding, LLC                                         limited liability         Delaware
Equistar Transportation Company, LLC                          limited liability         Delaware
Quantum Pipeline Company                                      corporation               Illinois
EC Plastics Unlimited Liability Company                       unlimited liability       Delaware
Equistar Bayport, LLC                                         limited liability         Delaware
Equistar Receivables, LLC                                     limited liability         Delaware
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

             STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO
                              EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS


I, J. Chris Brewster, Chief Financial Officer of Imperial Sugar Company, state
and attest that:

(1)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports of
     Imperial Sugar Company, and, except as corrected or supplemented in a
     subsequent covered report:

     o    no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material fact as
          of the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
          report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date on
          which it was filed); and

     o    no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to make
          the statements in the covered report, in light of the circumstances
          under which they were made, not misleading as of the end of the period
          covered by such report (or in the case of a report on Form 8-K or
          definitive proxy materials, as of the date on which it was filed).

(2)  I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit
     committee.

(3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or before
     the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

     o    September 30, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the
          Commission of Imperial Sugar Company;

     o    all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all definitive
          proxy materials of Imperial Sugar Company filed with the Commission
          subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K identified above; and

     o    any amendments to any of the foregoing.



                                                    Subscribed and sworn to
/s/ J. Chris Brewster                               before me this 13th day of
---------------------                               August 2002.
J. Chris Brewster
Executive Vice President and Chief                     /s/ Susan DiMucci
Financial Officer                                      ----------------------
August 13, 2002                                        Notary Public
                                                       My Commission Expires:
                                                            May 31, 2003
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8917 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 

to extend the authorization of the South Carolina National Heritage 

Corridor, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2020 

Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, and Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization of the 

South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF SOUTH 

4 CAROLINA NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR. 

5 Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

6 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333) is 

7 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8917 IH

1 (1) in section 607, by striking ‘‘2019’’ and in2 serting ‘‘2031’’; and 

3 (2) in section 608(a), by striking 

4 ‘‘$17,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$30,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Z-ZC-IK 

# AW LcosU i?O^Ac^L_ - SSLfflS30> a& mwimmMfr MAR 3 0 2015 

## 3&XSkk*Ltl<4^ W<Lvj <L»<k>-^ ^ -7%57& 

### CoA^^a^O-H5^J7^cC. ^tcx-kAfaLJC_2iail^: &$L^Jp11^D3-

(LJL
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00251-CR

Jason Dale January

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-CR-8645-DC

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 4, 2024