alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 848 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 13, 2023. 

Whereas the number of suicides of members of the Armed 

Forces serving on active duty increased to 377 in 2020, 

an increase from 348 in 2019; 

Whereas the suicide rate for veterans has steadily increased 

since 2006, with 6,261 veterans taking their own lives in 

2019; 

Whereas, after adjusting for sex and age, the rate of veteran 

suicide in 2018 was 27.5 per 100,000 individuals, higher 

than the rate among all United States adults, which was 

18.3 per 100,000 individuals; 

Whereas more veterans have died by suicide in the last 10 

years than members of the Armed Forces who died from 

combat in Vietnam; 

Whereas many of the veterans who take their own lives have 

had no contact with the Department of Veterans Affairs; 

Whereas the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic can lead to increased isolation and disconnection, 

further exacerbating mental and physical ailments such 

as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury; 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note 

that law enforcement officers and firefighters are more 
2 

•HRES 848 EH 

likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty, and emergency medical services providers are 1.39 times more 

likely to die by suicide than members of the general public; 

Whereas invisible wounds linked to an underlying and 

undiagnosed traumatic brain injury can mirror many 

mental health conditions, a problem that can be addressed through appropriate medical treatment; and 

Whereas additional research is needed to highlight the connection between traumatic brain injury as a root cause of 

invisible wounds and suicide by members of the Armed 

Forces and veterans: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) encourages all individuals in the United States, 

especially members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty and veterans, to call a warrior, have an honest 

conversation, and connect them with support, understanding that making a warrior call could save a life; 

and 

(2) implores all individuals in the United States to 

commit themselves to engaging with members of the 

Armed Forces and veterans to promote solutions and 
3 

•HRES 848 EH 

treatment for the invisible scars that members of the 

Armed Forces carry. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0790-17

KEITHRICK THOMAS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

PER CURIAM.

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine after the trial court denied his

motion to suppress. Appellant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal, and

the court of appeals affirmed. This Court initially granted discretionary review to examine

that holding. Having examined the record and briefs, we conclude that our decision to grant

review was improvident. We therefore dismiss Appellant's petition for discretionary review

as improvidently granted.

Delivered: September 19, 2018

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1278 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1278

  To designate the Federal building located at 985 Michigan Avenue in 
  Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building'', and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2023

 Ms. Stabenow introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 985 Michigan Avenue in 
  Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building'', and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ROSA PARKS FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 985 Michigan 
Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 
``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
    (c) Repeals.--
            (1) Public Law 109-98 (119 Stat. 2168) is repealed.
            (2) Sections 1 and 2 of Public Law 109-101 (119 Stat. 2171) 
        are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Patrick Goodwin , ERG

DATE: September 30

, 2015

SUBJECT: Index for Supporting Documentation for the National Scale Immediate

Receiving Water Model [DCN SE04559 ]

This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the National Scale Immediate Receiving Water (IRW) Model , developed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA

- 821

- R

- 15

- 006 (DCN SE04527) . The supporting documentation for this model includes the files listed in Table 1.

Ta ble 1. Supporting Documentation

Attachment ID Document Name Brief Description

A1 Attachment 1: Final

Steam EA IRW Model

- Wildlife and Human Health Module

- Human Health Summary Table Generator (CCR)

- DCN SE04559A1 Database used to summarize the human health modeling results for baseline and regulatory options. Generates the Human Health Summary Tables sprea dsheet. This version accounts for the CCR rulemaking.

A2 Attachment 2 : Final

Steam EA IRW Model

- Wildlife and Human Health Module

- Human Health Summary Tables (CCR)

- DCN SE04559A2 Spreadsheet that summarizes the human health modeling results for baseline and regulatory options. This version accounts for the CCR rulemaking.
Simon Samuel TADROS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3000

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00278-CR

Appeal from

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20130D00686)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We 

further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 18, 2018.

# PLACE:

 Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: January 11, 2018.

Brent J. Fields,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-00739 Filed 1-12-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Len GALE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Jaquan K. NEWMONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Stephanie MULLINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6069

CHRISTOPHER GANN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN J. ANDREWS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00204

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 2 3 , 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christopher Gann, Appellant Pro Se. Meghan Elizabeth Loftus, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Gann, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing Gann’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We
have reviewed the record and fi nd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gann v. Andrews , No. 1:20

- cv - 00204

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10509 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KELVIN DEVINE FAY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CR-64-2-C

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kelvin Devine Fay seeks to appeal his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and his sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment. He argues that the felon in possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional. He acknowledges that this court has previously rejected this argument in United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996) and United States v. Kuban , 94 F.3d 971 (5th Cir. 1996). Fay asks this Court, however, to revisit the matter based on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in United States v. Morrison , ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1740No. 00-10509 -2- (2000) and Jones v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1904 (2000). The Government argues that Fay has waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. Fay has not filed a reply brief addressing the waiver-of-appeal issue. A defendant may, as part of a valid plea agreement, waive his statutory right to appeal his sentence. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). To be valid, the waiver must be an informed one. Id . When the record clearly shows that the defendant read and understood the plea agreement and that he raised no question regarding the waiver-of-appeal provision, the plea agreement is upheld. United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court asked Fay if he had read and if heunderstood the plea agreement and in particular the waiver-ofappeal provision. Fay swore in the affirmative. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Fay did not understand or was confused by the waiver-of-appeal provision. See Portillo , 18 F.3d at 292-93. Fay’s and his counsel’s attestations indicate that he reviewed and understood “every part” of the plea agreement. Fay makes no argument to the contrary. The record shows that Fay knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction, including the constitutionality of the statute to which he pleaded guilty, in his plea agreement. Portillo , 18 F.3d at 292-93. Assuming that Fay did not waive his right to appeal the alleged incorrect application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 under exceptionNo. 00-10509 -3- (b) to the waiver-of-appeal provision, Fay specifically acknowledges that he is raising this point of error for future appellate purposes only. He concedes that this Court determined in United States v. Jackson , 220 F.3d 635, 639 (5th Cir. 2000) that the Texas felony offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle is a “crime of violence” as that term is defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,307
<INVENTORY>                                     18,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,671
<PP&E>                                          19,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,059
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,144
<SALES>                                         45,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,321
<CGS>                                           36,929
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    19
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   473
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,087
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
Zolton WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, O/B/O Rhoda Bihemo RHIAN, Appellee.

No. 4D17-880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,652
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,566
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     58,560
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          42,916
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            42,613
<LOANS>                                        161,620
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,415
<DEPOSITS>                                     252,704
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,337
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,489
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,784
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 288,415
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,465
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,554
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    44
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,063
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,092
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,162
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,901
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 160
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,149
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         821
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.65
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,180
<LOANS-PAST>                                        76
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,514
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,585
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       12
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,677
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,677
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,041
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald Curtis DELGER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10288.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Michael Thomas Morrissey, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerald Curtis Delger, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

John W. Rood, Attorney at Law, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Curtis Delger appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing an 18-month sentence. He originally pleaded guilty to theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Delger has filed a brief *151stating there are no issues, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 June 2005

in Case T-349/04 Parfümerie Douglas GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Removal of the earlier mark from the register - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 217/93)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-349/04: Parfümerie Douglas GmbH, established in Hagen (Germany), represented by C. Schumann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: A. von Mühlendahl), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal having been Jürgen Heinz Douglas, residing in Hamburg (Germany) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2004 (Case R 795/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Parfümerie Douglas GmbH and Jürgen Heinz Douglas — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

----
Exhibit 13.2







CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of GeoPark Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”), I, Andrés Ocampo, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 30, 2015





/s/ Andrés OcampoAndrés Ocampo

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
I hgend 

3 2005 N8 Emision Sources