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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3284 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3284

   To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual's 
history of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of 
              such individual committing a mass shooting.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2019

   Mr. Quigley (for himself, Ms. Moore, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. 
  Cohen, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Wild, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Meeks, Mr. 
Beyer, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. 
   Schakowsky, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Dean, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Engel, Mr. 
 Swalwell of California, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. 
  Deutch, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Jackson Lee, and 
 Mrs. Napolitano) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual's 
history of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of 
              such individual committing a mass shooting.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL'S HISTORY OF DOMESTIC 
              VIOLENCE CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH 
              INDIVIDUAL COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING.

    Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General of the United States shall complete a study and 
submit a report to the Congress on whether an individual's history of 
domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of such 
individual committing a mass shooting.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00166

- CV

Janinne Gilbert

v.

U.S. Bank National Association, as

Trustee For Certificateholders of

Bear Stearns Asset Backed

Securities I LLC, Asset Backed

Certificates, Series 2007

- AC1 It s Successors and Assigns §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 2

o f Denton County (CV

- 2011

- 01628 )

July 17, 2014

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdic tion

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
No. 11-6780.

#### Albert Burnett, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1020, 132 S. Ct. 566,

181 L. Ed. 2d 408,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8074.

November 7, 2011.

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

Same case below, 641 F.3d 894.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130793 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130793 COA: 255672 Wayne CC: 02-003444-01 TERRY DALE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
No. 10-10812.

#### James Mario Pridgen, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

565 U.S. 851, 132 S. Ct. 175,

181 L. Ed. 2d 86,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6040.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, denied.

Same case below, 11 A.3d 1026.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, July 29, 1998, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

Options for Multi-Purpose (Utility) Lighters

    The staff will brief the Commission on a draft notice of proposed 
rulemaking for multi-purpose lighters (also known as utility lighters) 
to address the hazard of fires started by young children who operate 
such lighters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: July 20, 1998.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19706 Filed 7-20-98; 3:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00079-CV

Daniel B. Jimenez

v.

City of Rockport, Texas

On Appeal from the

343rd District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-18-0338-1-CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 9, 2022
No. 11-6270.

#### Jon M. Withrow, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 1038, 132 S. Ct. 581,

181 L. Ed. 2d 428,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8193.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 356 V

Filed: November 14, 2013

Not for P ublication

*************************************

DOUGLAS FINLAY and CAMMIE *

FINLAY

, on Behalf of Their Minor *

Daughter

, GINA L. FINLAY, *

*

Petitioner s

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Carl D. Campbell, III , Alexandria, LA , for petitioner s

. Gordon E. Shemin , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On Novem ber 14 , 2013 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 r e quirement, petitioners filed a statement

asserting that they did no t incur any costs in pursuit of their petition.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

Petitioner s submitted their request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. During

informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain aspects of petitioner s ’ application

. Based on these objections, petition er s amend their application for attor ne ys’ fees and costs to

$ 15,117.27

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this amount to

be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 15,117.27 , representing reimbursement for

attorneys’ fee s and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k payable jointly to petitioner

and N eblett, Beard & Arsenault in the amount of $ 15,117.27

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19498]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts

    Section 30.13 of the Department of Health and Human Services' 
claims collection regulation (45 CFR Part 30) provides that the 
Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest as fixed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private 
consumer rates of interest prevailing on the date that HHS becomes 
entitled to recovery. The rate generally cannot be lower than the 
Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable 
rate determined from the ``Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with 
Range of Maturities.'' This rate may be revised quarterly by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and shall be published quarterly by the 
Department of Health and Human Services in the Federal Register.
    The Secretary of the Treasury has certified a rate of 13\3/4\% for 
the quarter ended June 30, 1998. This interest rate will remain in 
effect until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies HHS of 
any change.

    Dated: July 16, 1998.
George Strader,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance.
[FR Doc. 98-19498 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
Electrolytic-Elkem



uct: : Curomium METAL
ELectROLyTic

NAME. OF PRopuceR: © TékKosua Co,, Lro.
Gross AND NET WeicHTs:
GOVERNMENT ConTRacT No.: BSD-SM-57-5!
Cr. : ea

Electrolytic-Tekkosha


Aluminothermic
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3957 STANDARD 13.41 -0.06 -0.93

Tolerance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT January 26, 2020

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, MELTON WOOL A-A-55198

Shade Number BLUE 3346 Piece/Roll Number 3957
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WALLACE CLAYTON STEWART, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-191 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed May 17, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County; Marcus J. Ezelle, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Ama N. Appiah, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
No. 11-5711.

#### Jose Luis Buenrostro, aka Jose Luis Buen Rostro, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 919, 132 S. Ct. 342,

181 L. Ed. 2d 215,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7096,

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 638 F.3d 720.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-306-002]


TCP Gathering Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 14, 1998, TCP Gathering Company (TCP 
Gathering), tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 103A to be 
effective August 1, 1998.
    TCP Gathering states that the purpose of the filing is to correct 
inadvertent errors made in the July 1, 1998, filing in this proceeding.
    TCP Gathering states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
its transportation customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19767 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
MAY-16-2013 14=58 FAA RENTON 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 l.lnd Avenue, S.W. 

P.02/03 

U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation Renton, Washington 98057·3356 

Federal Avicrtion 

Administration 

May 16,2013 

Mr. Jonathan Moritz 

Delta Engineering 

13 DRBA Way 

New Castle, DE 19720 

Dear Mr. Moritz: 

We have received your February 12, 2013, response to our February 7, 2013, request for 

further information regarding your November 7, 2012. petition for exemption regarding 

approval of Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) and or/assessments (Docket No. FAA-2012-1209). 

It is not clear if you are petitioning for an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 

§ 26.1l(c) or you are petitioning the FAA for rulemaking. The first paragraph of your letter 

indicates you are seeking both an exemption from the requirements of§ 26.1l(c) and are 

petitioning the FAA to revise the requirements contained in§ 26.ll(c). Please clarify your 

request. 

If you are petitioning the FAA for an exemption to the requirements of§ 26.11(c) you must 

follow the 14 CFR § 11.81 instructions regarding the infonnation you must also include in 

your petition to allow us to process the request. Please take note of items listed below, as 

these items were either missing or not adequately addressed in your original or your revised 

request. 

• The extent of relief you seek and the reasons for seeking the relief. 

• The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole. 

• The reason why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how 

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the 

rule from which you seek exemption. 

• A summary we can publish in the Federal Register stating the rule from which you 

seek the exemption and a brief description ofthe nature ofthe exemption you seek. 

You may also want to include the following: 

• Any additional information, views, or· arguments to support your request~ and 
MAY-16-2013 14:58 FAA RENTON 

• If you want to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United States, 

the reason you need to do so. 

Section 11.85 requires us to publish a summary of your petitions for exemption in the 

Federal Register for public comment. Section 11.87 allows you to present r~asons, or the 

FAA to find good cause, why we should not delay action on your petitions by the public 

comment process. · 

Also note that § 11.63 requires you to send petitions for exemption at least 120 days before 

you need the exemption to take effect. 

P.03/03 

2 

We will hold the project open for 30 days awaiting this information. If we do not receive a 

. response in 30 days we will close the project with no further correspondence to you. 

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, 

please contact Stephen Slotte at 425-22 7-2315, or at steve.slotte@faa. gov. 

Paul Siegmund · Acting Manager, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111 

TOTAL P.03
July 05, 2023 DLA-SM-23-3235

DLA STRATEGIC MATERIALS ANNOUNCES

BOA SALES FOR June 2023

Fort Belvoir, VA - The Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials today announced sales made 

under the following Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA) during June 2023.

SOLICITATION:

DLA-Stockpile Materials-001

UNIT QUANTITY 

SOLD

APPROX 

VALUE

COMPANY

Ferrochrome Amendment 001 LC ST

HC ST

1,000 $1.83 M *

Ferromanganese Amendment 001 ST NO

SALES

Chromium Metal Amendment 001 ST NO

SALES

Tungsten Ores and Concentrates 

Amendment 001

Lbs W NO

SALES

Tin Amendment 001 MT 11 $289 K

*

 *If no company name appears, the single awardee name has been withheld
No. 10-1404.

No. 10-1420.

#### United States, Petitioner v. New York, et al. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al., Petitioners v. County of Oneida, New York, et al.

565 U.S. 970, 132 S. Ct. 452,

181 L. Ed. 2d 308,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7567.

October 17, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would grant the petitions for writs of certiorari.

Same cases below, 617 F.3d 114.
No. 11-6114.

#### Luis Rocha, Petitioner v. Adrian Feinerman.

565 U.S. 985, 132 S. Ct. 512,

181 L. Ed. 2d 361,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7824.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_______________ __ __ NO. 09

- 12

- 00230

- CR

________________ __ _ KEVIN EARL KIRKLAND A/K/A KEVIN KIRKLIN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ __________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- 12197

________________________________________ __________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In carrying out a plea

- bargain agreement, Kevin Ear l Kirkland 1 pled guilty

to third

- degree felony family assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B)

(West 20 11 ). Under the terms of the plea

- bargain agreement, t he trial court

1 Kevin Earl Kirkland is also referred to in the clerk’s record as Kevin Kirklin , and the record reflects that the defendant s ign s his name as Kevin Kirklin. For purposes of this appeal, we will refer to the defendant as K irkland
, as shown on the indictment and final judgment.2 deferred the adjudication of Kirkl and ’s guilt and placed Kirkland on community
supervision for a period of three years . Additionally, the deferred adjudication

order includes a fine of $500.

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke the trial court’s community
supervision order. After conducting a hearing, the trial court found Kirkl and guilty
of assaulting a family member and sentenced Kirkl and to ten years ’ imprisonment ;

however
, during the revocation and sentencing hearing, the trial court did not
pronounce that it also intended to impose a fi ne. Nevertheless, the written
judgment includes a fine in the amount of $500.

The three issues Kirkland raises in his appeal argue th at the trial court should
not have included a $500 fine in the final judgment because no fine was

pronounced during Kirkl and ’s revocation and sentencing hearing

. The State

concedes error.
Because no fine was pronounced at the revocation and sentencing hearing,
the trial court should not have included the fine at issue in the final judgment.

Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326 , 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). ( “[W]hen there is a
variation between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written
memorialization of the sentence, the oral pronouncement controls.” ). The trial
court’s failure to orally pronounce a fine during the revo cation and sentencing3 hearing creates a conflict between the oral pronouncement of Kirkland’s sentence

and the written judgment; in cases of deferred adjudication, the oral
pronouncement controls

. See Taylor v. State , 131 S.W.3d 497, 5 02 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2 004).

We sustain Kirkland’s first issue ; we modify the trial court’s judgment
, reducing “Administrative Fees” from $1
, 582 .00 to $1,082.00. As modified, the
judgment is affirmed

.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 27, 2012 Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.