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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2255

To amend the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to establish a new budget

point of order against any amendment, bill, or conference report that

directs increased revenues from additional taxation of Social Security

or Railroad Retirement benefits to a fund other than the Social Security

trust fund or the Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. GORTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on

the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to establish

a new budget point of order against any amendment,

bill, or conference report that directs increased revenues

from additional taxation of Social Security or Railroad

Retirement benefits to a fund other than the Social Security trust fund or the Social Security Equivalent Benefit

Account.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2255 RIS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Trust

3 Fund Protection Act of 1994’’.

4 SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER.

5 Subtitle C of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990

6 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

7 ‘‘SEC. 13307. REVENUES FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAX8 ATION.

9 ‘‘(a) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in

10 either the House of Representatives or the Senate to con11 sider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con12 ference report that—

13 ‘‘(1) would increase the aggregate tax liability

14 on Social Security benefits and does not deposit the

15 revenue resulting from such increase in the trust

16 funds under title II of the Social Security Act; or

17 ‘‘(2) would increase the aggregate tax liability

18 of Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits and does not

19 deposit the revenue resulting from such increase in

20 the Social Security Equivalent Benefit Account.

21 ‘‘(b) SUPERMAJORITY.—This section may be waived

22 or suspended in the Senate or the House of Representa23 tives only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the

24 Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of

25 three-fifths of the Members shall be required in the Senate

26 or the House of Representatives to sustain an appeal of
3

•S 2255 RIS

1 the ruling of the chair on a point of order raised under

2 this section.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         222,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  837,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (60,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    458,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,697,454
<PP&E>                                         321,912
<DEPRECIATION>                               (134,061)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,112,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,101,346
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        98,911
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,112,507
<SALES>                                      1,286,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,286,774
<CGS>                                          123,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,008,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
No. 01-14 -01015

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT

HOUSTON, TEXAS

SANDRA N ZE

Appellant

V.

UCHENNA NWABUEZE

Appellee

_____________________________________________________________________________

APPELLEE ’S MOTION TO ENQUIR E ON THE STATUS OF APPELLEE’S MOTIONS

IN OPPOSITION TO APPLELLANT’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS

Comes Now the Appellee, Uchenna Nwabueze, by and through his attorney of record,

and presents this Motion to Enquire on the Status of Appellee ’s Motions in Opposition of

App ellant’s Requests for Extensions to file a brief in the above styled case. Appellee would show

the Court the following:

1. This is an appeal from an eviction case wherein Appellant was ordered by the Justice

Court to vacate the premises in question. The County Court, on appeal, affirmed the

Justice Court’s ruling and ordered Appellant to vacate the premises on or before

December 31, 2014.

2. Appellant made a second request for an extension. She filed a request, on her own,

for an extension, in March 2015, an d again in April 2015 when she retained the

services of an attorney who filed the second re quest for an extension. The attorney’s

reasons for the extension is that council has “previously scheduled depositions

through April 28, 2015.”

3. Appellee filed two Motions in Opposition of Appellant’s request for extensions to file

a brief in this case.

4. It is now May and Appellant to date has not filed a brief. ACCEPTED

01-14-01015-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/25/2015 11:20:22 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2

5. Appellee continues to suffer enormous financial hardship while this appeal is pending

because Appellant co ntinues to occupy the residence without payment of rent or costs

to Appellee.

Appellee respectfu lly presents to the Court this Motion to Enquir e on Appellee’s Motions

Opposing Appellant’s Request for Extension to file a brief, and a ruling on the issues in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

WHITE LAW OFFICE

BY: ___ s/ Carlettte White

Carlette White,

P.O. Box

Sugar Land, Texas 77487

TBN: 21516430

281

- 203

- 0800

713

- 391

- 8724 fax

Whitelawoffice1@aol.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by VIA email to

Appellant’s Attorney of Record on this 25 th day of May , 2015

.

BY:

___ /s/ Carlettte White

____________

Carlette White, Attorney for Appellee
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tremaine Cosby, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 498]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.) rendered November 19, 2013 convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts) and conspiracy in the second degree, and purportedly imposing sentence, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding for pronouncement of sentence on each count of both indictments on the record, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People concede, although there was discussion on the record of the sentences the court intended to impose, the court never formally imposed sentence in accordance with CPL 380.20. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for the sole purpose of pronouncing defendant’s sentence on the record *(see e.g. People v Espinal,*234 AD2d 84 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1092 [1997]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber and Oing, JJ.
# Spring Fling celebrates teamwork in Subsistence

/ Published May 17, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 

The Subsistence sensing team hosted their first event of the year with a Spring Fling, offering employees an opportunity to “play hard because we work hard,” said event coordinator, Kelly Parker.The event, which brought together more than 100 Subsistence employees, was the brainchild of the Subsistence sensing team, culture improvement team and senior level managers. It featured an egg race, water balloon toss, horseshoes and trivia game to help enhance team building and morale.“This event is a perfect opportunity for managers to say thank you to their staff for all that they do throughout the year,” said Parker, Subsistence sensing team chairperson. “It also helps to forge new alliances and work relationships by bringing people together and changing their perceptions one event at a time. That is what the sensing team is all about.”  

Everything came together to create the “perfect day” for this event, from the weather, food and turnout, said Joseph Cauvin, Subsistence tailored vendor logistics specialist.

After they finished eating, employees played cornhole and horseshoes as a warm up to the main events, the egg race and volleyball tournament.

Subsistence Director of Supplier Operations Gina Vasquez said she was looking forward the most to the egg race and had been practicing. Vasquez and her partner, Rich Faso, Subsistence deputy director, won both the egg race and the water balloon toss.

“This is a good event where everybody can get an opportunity to get away from their desk and really enjoy each other and have good conversations outside of work,” said Vasquez. “It also helps to build stronger work relationships.” 

The sensing team will host several fundraisers, such as yard sales, bake sales and a pizza party, until their Fall Festival. They’ll end the year with the Subsistence holiday party.
# DSCR participates in the world’s greatest shakeout

/ Published Oct. 21, 2019
Richmond, Va. , 
Dozens of employees across Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, joined millions of people worldwide, at 10:17 a.m. Oct. 17 when they participated in The Great ShakeOut. 

The Great ShakeOut, the world’s largest earthquake drill, gave William Bullock, Sr., installation emergency manager, Security and Emergency Services, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond, an opportunity to ensure center personnel were trained, rehearsed and discussed how to protect themselves during earthquakes. 

Bullock said the purpose of the drill was to validate the preparedness and responses of center personnel.

“We wanted to check the flow of information,” he said.

Bullock said individuals often try to leave a building when an earthquake starts, which he advises against.

“If you are inside when an earthquake starts, research has shown it is safer to remain inside as most injuries occur when people move to different locations inside the building or try to leave,” he said.

This year’s shakeout theme is Drop (to the ground), Cover (by getting under a sturdy table or another piece of furniture) and Hold On (until the shaking stops) and addresses actions people should take inside a building.                 Earthquake drill theme graphic            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Southern California Earthquake Center at the University of Southern CaliforniaVIRIN: 191017-D-D0441-1002

If individuals are already outside, Bullock urges them to move into the open, away from buildings, exits and exterior walls near which the most significant danger exists from collapsing walls, flying glass and falling objects.  

Bullock provided external organizational evaluators in key locations on center during the drill who spoke with employees to confirm that they knew what to do in the event of an earthquake while on center.

“Results of the exercise will be revealed during an upcoming after-action review,” said Bullock. “Overall most employees and especially children in the CDC were aware of and/or executed proper actions when the drill occurred.”

DLA and tenant employees are urged to review their organization’s Occupant Emergency Plan, and review documents related to earthquakes found on the DSCR Employee Emergency Preparedness intranet/sharepoint website.
# Big trucks bring big boxes, big bucks saved

/ Published Dec. 22, 2015
December 16, 2015,
No. 10-6177.

#### George Jenkins, Petitioner v. Robert Stevenson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 524,

178 L. Ed. 2d 385,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8573.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 308.
201·5 FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT 

DOCUMENT# L 14000124011 

Entity Name: BRAVE WORLD PRODUCTIONS, LLC 

Current Principal Place of Business: 

6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST 

SUITE N 

BRADENTON, FL 34209 

Current Mailing Address: 

6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST 

SUITE N 

BRADENTON, FL 34209 US 

FEI Number: 47-1848302 

Name and Address of Current Registered Agent: 

GOULD, MICHAEL 

6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST 

SUITE N 

BRADENTON, FL 34209 US 

FILED 

Jan 20, 2015 

Secretary of State 

CC9643057529 

Certificate of Status Desired: No 

The above named entity submits this statement for the purpose of changing its registered office or registered agent, or both, in the State of Florida. 

SIGNATURE: 

Electronic Signature of Registered Agent Date 

Authorized Person(s) Detail : 

Title MGRM Title MBR 

Name GOULD, MICHAEL Name GOULD, JANICE 

Address 6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST, Address 6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST, SUITE N SUITE N 

City-State-Zip: BRADENTON FL 34209 City-State-Zip: BRADENTON FL 34209 

Title MBR Title MBR 

Name HUXLEY, MIKE Name HUXLEY, STEPHANIE 

Address 6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST, Address 6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST, SUITE N SUITE N 

City-State-Zip: BRADENTON FL 34209 City-State-Zip: BRADENTON FL 34209 

Title CFO 

Name HADLOCK, DANIELLE 

Address 6404 MANATEE AVENUE WEST 

SUITE N 

City-State-Zip: BRADENTON FL 34209 

1 hereby certify that the information Indicated on this report or supplemental report is true and accurate and that my e/octronic signature shall havothe same legal effect as if mads under oath; that/ am a managing member or manager of the limlled liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute /his report as required by Chapter 605, Florida Statutes; and that my name appears above, or on an attachment with all other like empowered. 

SIGNATURE: DANIELLE HADLOCK CFO 01 /20/2015 

Electronic Signature of Signing Authorized Person(s) Detail Date 
p . 1 f 1 

· Fr.oRIDA DEPARTMENT oF srATE ~ .:i...._;a ;: - D trtsiO\ or C oRPOR.\TIO\s ---_7J<n/Jr

--~ 

z ~~- -k~~- ''\':' r~}f ' ~-..;. ..... 

Thank you for your payment. 

Please print this receipt and keep it for your records. 

Reference Number: CC9643057529 

Doc Number: L 14000124011 

Payment Amount: $138.75 

Receipt Number: 3632993721 

Transaction Date: 01/20/2015 10:58 AM 

Payment Type: [VISA] 

********** .. 4484 

https://paydirect.link2gov.com/FLDOC/Receipt/SuccessfulPavment 1 /?0 /? 0 1 "
**DRAFT** **EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-149240, No.333-141583, No. 333-134097, No. 333-124136, No. 333-114020, and No. 333-110517 of GenitopeCorporation on Form S-8 and in Registration Statements No. 333-146808, and No. 333-121303 ofGenitope Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated March 31, 2008, relating to the financialstatements of Genitope Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includesexplanatory paragraphs regarding going concern uncertainty, and the change in accountingfor stock-based compensation upon adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment, effective January 1, 2006), and the effectiveness of Genitope Corporation’sinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of GenitopeCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 31, 2008
S91A1344.

#### HARTLEY-SELVEY v. HARTLEY.

(410 SE2d 118)

Clarke, Chief Justice.

Appellant, former wife, filed an application for attachment for contempt against appellee, former husband, alleging that he had failed to pay his share of their minor child’s college expenses in violation of the settlement agreement incorporated into the final divorce decree.

Paragraph six of the settlement agreement provides

> Husband and wife do hereby agree that any and all college expenses for the education of [the minor child] shall be shared jointly between the parties.

Appellant alleged that appellee’s share of the child’s freshman year college expenses amounted to $8,272.25, and that his share of her *701sophomore year college expenses amounted to $8,020. Appellant alleged that appellee had wilfully refused to pay these amounts. The trial court found that appellee had forgiven a $4,500 debt owed him by appellant, and that appellant had applied this amount to the first year of college expenses. The trial court determined that this sum was a “reasonable amount” in relation to one year of college expenses, but also found that appellee had failed to pay any amount toward the child’s second year of college expenses and was therefore in wilful contempt. The trial court ordered that appellee might purge himself “by paying reasonable expenses of college for the current year in the amount of $4500.”

Decided November 22, 1991.

*Custer & Hill, Lawrence B. Custer, Barton R. Bright III,*for appellant.

*Warner, Mayoue & Ryals, John C. Mayoue, Alvah O. Smith,*for *702appellee.

*701We granted appellant’s application to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in construing the settlement agreement to provide that appellee pay only “reasonable” expenses, and in deciding that “reasonable” expenses amounted to $4,500.

The trial court determined that the language of paragraph six of the settlement agreement did not reflect the true intent of the parties with regard to the financial obligations they wished to incur. However, where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the court must look to those terms alone to determine the intent of the parties. *Southern Fed. Savings*&c. *Assn. v. Lyle,*249 Ga. 284, 287 (290 SE2d 455) (1982). The language of the settlement agreement provided that the parties would jointly share “any .and all” college expenses of the minor child. This language is clear and unambiguous. While the parties could have placed limitations on the amount of their contractual obligations for college expenses, they elected not to do so. In view of the clear language of the settlement agreement, the trial court erred in imposing such a limitation.

Further, the record in this case indicates that no evidence was offered to show that $4,500 is a “reasonable” annual amount for appellee to pay toward his daughter’s college education. Rather, the record shows that the appellee forgave appellant a debt unrelated to college expenses in the amount of $4,500, and that the trial court used this figure to determine the sum appellee should be required to pay for college expenses.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# Troop Support employees gets physical during FEW 5K

/ Published May 27, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
More than 75 Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees participated in the second annual Federally Employed Women's 5K Walk/Run May 25.That’s an increase from about 30 participants last year. DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton encouraged employees to participate as part of DLA’s efforts to strengthen workforce resiliency.“Engage in our resiliency program by taking part in this opportunity to get physical and improve your health,” Hamilton said “Remember ... strong bodies help build strong minds.”The FEW Philadelphia chapter organized the event to increase their co-workers’ health and fitness. May is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month.“We want to promote having a healthy workforce and therefore you having a healthy life, and hopefully more energy to do your work,” said FEW Community Outreach Chair Imani Mitchell.The DLA resiliency model has four pillars: mental, physical, social and spiritual. Hamilton said the physical pillar is a priority for him, during a town hall Nov. 19.The FEW organizers provided participants with health information, healthy snacks and favors.FEW works to end discrimination and advance career opportunities for women in the government.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cahiem Harris, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 186]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered April 1, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The chain of events readily supports the inference that at the time defendant unlawfully entered an apartment building, he did so with the intent to commit a crime therein.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves significant matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of his ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the *542state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). With regard to defendant’s claim that his counsel’s conduct deprived him of the opportunity for a more lenient disposition, defendant has not shown that counsel could have “salvaged” the aborted guilty plea after defendant made a plainly unsatisfactory factual allocution. With regard to trial strategy, the record shows that, in addition to other defenses, counsel did in fact present a version of the defense that defendant now faults him for omitting.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.