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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 106 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect 

the rights of crime victims. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2012 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself and Mr. COSTA) 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 to protect the rights of crime victims. 

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 proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 106 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights of a crime victim to fairness, 

3 respect, and dignity, being capable of protection without 

4 denying the constitutional rights of the accused, shall not 

5 be denied or abridged by the United States or any State. 

6 The crime victim shall, moreover, have the rights to rea7 sonable notice of, and shall not be excluded from, public 

8 proceedings relating to the offense, to be heard at any re9 lease, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding involving 

10 any right established by this article, to proceedings free 

11 from unreasonable delay, to reasonable notice of the re12 lease or escape of the accused, to due consideration of the 

13 crime victim’s safety, and to restitution. The crime victim 

14 or the crime victim’s lawful representative has standing 

15 to fully assert and enforce these rights in any court. Noth16 ing in this article provides grounds for a new trial or any 

17 claim for damages and no person accused of the conduct 

18 described in section 2 of this article may obtain any form 

19 of relief. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 2. For purposes of this article, a crime vic21 tim includes any person against whom the criminal offense 

22 is committed or who is directly harmed by the commission 

23 of an act, which, if committed by a competent adult, would 

24 constitute a crime. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 106 IH 

1 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless 

2 it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution 

3 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 

4 within 14 years after the date of its submission to the 

5 States by the Congress. This article shall take effect on 

6 the 180th day after the date of its ratification.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 19936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Public Meeting

    On June 24, 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published 
a notice in the Federal Register (62 FR 34074) requesting the 
submission of any information that may be available concerning the 
impacts of exports of live American alligators. In that notice, the 
Service announced that, if requested in writing, a public meeting 
concerning the issue would be held. A public meeting was requested and 
will be held on May 5, 1998, from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm, at the Delta 
Resort Orlando, 5715 Major Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32819-7988.

    Dated: April 13, 1998.
Kenneth Stansell,
Chief, Office of Management Authority.
[FR Doc. 98-10576 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 13

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving 
Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2011

   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 giving 
Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 
                             United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7404

LEROY SHAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM R. BYARS, Director; LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; SCOTT 

LEWIS, Assistant Warden; JAMES PARKER, Assistant Warden; 

FRANK MURSIER, Major; ALLESON GLIDEWELL, Hearing Officer; 

LORIS HOLMES, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, individually and 

his official capacity; MRS. JOYCE YOUNG,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(9:12-cv-00520-RBH)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, 

O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

LeRoy Shaw appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shaw v. 

Byars, No. 9:12-cv-00520-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2013). 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.

AFFIRMED
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019232EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/12 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9381 — Carlyle/Mubadala/CEPSA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 232/11)

1.

On 3 July 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019232EN.01001201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Carlyle Group L.P. (“Carlyle”, USA), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mubadala Investment Company PJSC (“Mubadala”, United Arab Emirates), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U. (“CEPSA”, Spain). |

Carlyle and Mubadala acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of CEPSA. CEPSA is currently solely controlled by Mubadala.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Carlyle is a global investment firm, which manages funds that invest globally across four business segments: (i) corporate private equity; (ii) real assets; (iii) global credit; and (iv) investment solutions, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mubadala is active in direct principal investments, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CEPSA is an integrated oil and gas company. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019232EN.01001201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9381 — Carlyle/Mubadala/CEPSA

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019232EN.01001201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019232EN.01001201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### State v. Anderson

27990

05/01/2017

Affirmed (CM)
IA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give 

States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 

by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. 

CHAFFETZ, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GRAVES

of Georgia, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. LAMBORN, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. 

MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. WALBERG, and Mr. WALSH of Illinois) 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 to give States the right to repeal Federal laws 

and regulations when ratified by the Legislatures of two 

thirds of the several States. 

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 proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 62 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

3 for ratification: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘Any provision of law or regulation of the United 

6 States may be repealed by the several states, and such 

7 repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds 

8 of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose 

9 that particularly describe the same provision or provisions 

10 of law or regulation to be repealed.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Degyves-Chavez

105,314

04/08/13

Denied. ...

Unpublished
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: In the Matter of Z.E.K.B.L. AKA Z.L., A.S.L. AKA A.L., S.E.L., and

S.Z.L., Children

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 0 1097

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 11

- 18283

Trial court: 309 t h District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed : August 13 , 2012

Party filing motion : Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Massengale

Date: September 25 , 2012
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Montana Natural Gas Repressuring  (Million Cubic Feet)  
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Montana Natural Gas Repressuring  (Million Cubic Feet)  
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 722    | 365    | 377   
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 394    | 499    | 441    | 1,065  | 750    | 611    | 464    | 267    | 567    | 517   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 230    | 41     |        |        | 171    | 197    | 186    | 208    | 214    | 177   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 222    | 231    | 180    | 231    | 105    | 82     | 76     | 64     | 68     | 65    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 5      | 9      | 19     | 6      | 6      | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 4      | 0      | 0      | NA     | 0      | 10     | 6      | 4      | 4     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 4      | 3      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Interstate Receipts  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Interstate Receipts  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1    | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5    | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | --------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | --------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ---------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |           |         |         |         |           |         |         |         | 320,324  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 313,884 | 330,531   | 545,863 | 511,429 | 543,679 | 810,112   | 848,589 | 827,475 | 657,304 | 630,269  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 608,121 | 551,466   | 614,069 | 908,776 | 959,983 | 1,001,779 | 789,352 | 817,035 | 539,639 | 626,903  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 897,480 | 1,021,333 | 961,851 | 972,573 | 948,526 | 817,513   | 806,426 | 840,179 | 995,187 | 1,020,603
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 829,078 | 625,609   | 683,448 |         |         |           |         |         |         |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
133P16-2

#### State v. William Gerald Price

Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Request to Clarify (COAP15-1073)

Dismissed
#### Barry Keith GORDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-2019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 4, 2017

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
#### State v. Toland

107,820

08/30/13

Denied.

Unpublished
#### Monti M. LONG, Appellant, v. Dana L. LONG, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1930

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 3, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Elisabeth Adams, Judge.

Affirmed.
#### *In re*Benancio Santana Rabell.

*Número:*AB-2013-0506

*Resuelto:*17 de marzo de 2017

*Karla Z. Pacheco Álvarez,*subprocuradora general, y *Daphne M. Cordero Guilloty,*procuradora general auxiliar; *Manuel E. Avila de Jesús,*director de la Oficina de Inspección de Notarías, en informe.

RESOLUCIÓN

Luego de evaluar el Informe realizado por la Oficina de Inspección de Notarías (ODIN) y ante el incumplimiento del Ledo. Benancio Santana Rabell con las órdenes de este *698Tribunal, *se le suspende inmediata e indefinidamente del ejercicio de la notaría y se ordena al Alguacil de este Tribunal que incaute el sello y la obra notariales bajo la custodia del licenciado Santana Rabell y que los entregue al Ledo. Manuel E. Ávila de Jesús, director de la ODIN, para la correspondiente investigación e informe.*

Asimismo, *se refiere nuevamente este asunto a la atención de la Oficina del Procurador General para que, dentro de sus facultades investigativas, emita el informe correspondiente en torno a la existencia de firmas de partes no comparecien-tes a la Escritura Núm. 12 y las violaciones que ello impli-caría a la luz de la Ley Notarial, el Reglamento Notarial y los cánones del Código de Etica Profesional.*

Por otro lado, *se le ordena al licenciado Santana Rabell que, en el término de treinta días a partir de la notificación de esta Resolución, certifique a este Tribunal el reembolso total al promovente de los honorarios facturados por traba-jos no completados, así como que acredite la entrega de los documentos que mantiene al presente bajo su custodia. No-tifíquese personalmente.*

*Publíquese.*

Lo acordó el Tribunal y lo certifica el Secretario del Tribunal Supremo.

(Fdo.) Juan Ernesto Dávila Rivera *Secretario del Tribunal Supremo*
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Mercury General Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i)
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                       
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: November 7, 2006 |  | /s/ GEORGE JOSEPH                     
|                       |  | George Joseph, Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2019331EN.01000101.xml

| 2.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.9409 — Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 331/01)

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004

On 30 August 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Aurubis AG and Metallo Group Holding N.V. On 25 September 2019, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.

---