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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 676 

Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President 

or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under 

the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2014 

Mr. SESSIONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by 

the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the 

United States. 

1 Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to initiate 

2 or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the 

3 House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent 

4 jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the 

5 failure of the President, the head of any department or 

6 agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive 

7 branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 676 IH 

1 duties under the Constitution and laws of the United 

2 States with respect to implementation of any provision of 

3 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or 

4 subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education 

5 Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment 

6 made by such provision, or any other related provision of 

7 law, including a failure to implement any such provision. 

8 SEC. 2. The Speaker shall notify the House of Rep9 resentatives of a decision to initiate or intervene in any 

10 civil action pursuant to this resolution. 

11 SEC. 3. The Office of the General Counsel of the 

12 House of Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, 

13 shall represent the House in any civil action initiated, or 

14 in which the House intervenes, pursuant to this resolution, 

15 and may employ the services of outside counsel and other 

16 experts for this purpose. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00347-CR

Luis Armando Carreon

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-0809-06-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and a judgment discharging 

Carreon from community supervision is RENDERED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 11, 2018
Peter J. ABADIE, Jr. v. Ann Rau ABADIE

Ann Rau v. Peter Abadie, Jr.

NO. 2018-C-1897

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., recused.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00320

- CV

R AY F ISCHER AND C ORPORATE T AX M ANAGEMENT , I NC

. N / K / A RY F ISCHER & A SSOCIATES , I NC

. , Appellants

V

.

M ARK B OOZER , J ERROD R AY MOND , AND CTMI, LLC
, Appellees §
§

§
§ O n Appeal from the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 048

- 284212

- 16 )

October 7, 2021
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds t hat there

was error in the trial court’s final judgment . It is ordered that the trial court ’ s final
judgment is reversed and we render the followin g:

1

. Appellant Ray Fischer shall recover from Appellees $990,175.66

.

2

. Appellants shall recover from Appel lees $450,000 for Appellants ’

reasonable and nec essary attorney ’ s fees for work done at the trial court level

.

3. Appellants shall recover from Appellees $60,000 for Appellants ’

reasonable and nec essary attorney ’ s fees for work done at the Court of Appeals level

.4. If Appellants prevail in an appeal of this court ’ s judgment to the Texas

Supreme Cou rt , the y shall add itional ly recover from Appellees $10,000 for Appellants ’
reasonable and necessary att orney ’ s fees if a petition for review is filed , and in the

ev ent the petition for review is granted by the Tex as Supreme Court and Appellants

ulti mately prevail, Appellants shall recover from Appellees an additional $ 30,000 for
Appellants ’ reasonable and necessary attorney ’ s fees

.
It is further ordered that App ellees shall bear the costs of this appeal, for which

let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack Justice Dana Womack
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(7)
              - products_publications(14)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - news_news-149245(5)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - (-)news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(4)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - (-)missouri(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

National News Release        October 12, 2023        USGS partners with six states to map critical mineral potential with cutting-edge data
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00530

- CR

Rosemary Lynn BRYAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR5923W

Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 1, 2023.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 28, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00448-CV 

REBECCA DE LEON, Appellant 

V. 

DIVERITAS HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 95th District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-17480 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because the 

parties have settled their dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

240448F.P05 

 

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

REBECCA DE LEON, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00448-CV V. 

DIVERITAS HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 95th District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-17480. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices PartidaKipness and Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee 

DIVERITAS HOLDINGS, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellant 

REBECCA DE LEON. 

Judgment entered June 28, 2024
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30808]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 27, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1066 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-826, K2025-827.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30808 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence WILLIAMS

NO. 2018-KH-1330

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX § 6.
C.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because C.C. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of December 19, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

LaROSE, C.J., and SALARIO and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

                               SECTION 906 OF THE

                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June
30, 2003 (the "Report") of BearingPoint, Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert S. Falcone,
the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:

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

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

                                                /s/ Robert S. Falcone
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Name: Robert S. Falcone
                                                Date: September 29, 2003
Timmothy ZEIGLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-343

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 5, 2018

Timmothy Zeigler, Madison, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
S. D. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 30, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because S.D.R. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of November 27, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(18)
              - (-)products_data(5)
              - products_publications(51)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(7)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(6)
              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(4)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - american samoa(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(11)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(6)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - kansas(3)
              - maine(3)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(1)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(12)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(1)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(4)
              - rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - (-)virginia(5)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

Real-time Data        September 26, 2016        Flooding Data

Real-time Data        October 7, 2016        Hurricane and Flood Response Map Viewer

Real-time Data        December 27, 2014        Earthquake Real-Time Data

Real-time Data        November 27, 2014        Earthquake Daily Data

Real-time Data        October 27, 2014        Earthquake Activity Data
Stephen J. BYERS, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A the Bank of New York, Successor in Interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Alt-A Trust, etc., Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 25, 2019

Stephen J. Byers, Delray Beach, pro se.

Mary J. Walter, of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*271Stephen Byers appeals from a nonfinal order denying his motion to quash constructive service of process in this foreclosure case. Because the nonfinal order did not determine personal jurisdiction over Byers, it is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and this court lacks jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal. *See**Archer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n* , 220 So.3d 477, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

DISMISSED.

EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
STATE of Louisiana v. Otis BEDWELL

NO. 2018-KH-0162

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

                             FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE
                                LICENSE AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment (this "FIRST AMENDMENT") to the License Agreement
is made and entered into as of October 16, 2002 by and between EPIMMUNE INC.,
having a principal place of business at 5820 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, CA
92121 ("EPMN"), and GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., having a principal place of
business at 925 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1013 ("GCOR") (collectively
referred to herein as the "PARTIES") agree as follows:

         WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into that certain License Agreement
dated July 9, 2001 (the "LICENSE AGREEMENT"); and

         WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the License Agreement on the terms
and conditions set forth herein;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings of the
Parties as set forth below as well as other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, GCOR and EPMN do hereby
mutually agree as follows:

A.   With respect to the Collaboration Term, Section 1.6 shall be amended to
     read as follows:

1.6 "Collaboration Term" shall mean the three and one-half (3.5) year period
from April 2, 2001 through September 1, 2004, unless extended by mutual
agreement or terminated early as provided for in the Collaboration Agreement.

B.   All terms and conditions of the License Agreement remain in full force and
     effect, as modified hereby and are hereby ratified by the parties.

C.   From and after the effective date of this First Amendment to the License
     Agreement, the term "Agreement" shall be deemed to mean the License
     Agreement as hereby modified.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this First Amendment to the
License Agreement to be executed by and through their duly authorized
representatives as of the date first above written.

EPIMMUNE INC.

By: /s/ Robert J. De Vaere
    ----------------------------
    Robert J. De Vaere
    Vice President, Finance and
    Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>

 GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 By: /s/ Debby Jo Blank
     ----------------------------------
         Debby Jo Blank
     ----------------------------------

 Title: Senior Vice President, Healthcare
        -------------------------------------

                                       -2-
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - (-)documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(50)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

## By Year

Records        March 26, 2019        1973 Space Images of Mississippi Floods News Release

Records        March 28, 2019        1973 Time Lapse Space View of Mississippi Floods Article

Records        February 27, 2019        USGS Streamflow Peaks of Record Resulting from Hurricane Irene
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2018

No. 04-18-00519-CR

Earl James OTTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR3776

The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. We 

ORDER appellant to file his brief on or before January 11, 2019. No further extensions will be 

granted.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 10.21****Amendment No. 3, Waiver and Consent to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement**          This Amendment No. 3, Waiver and Consent dated as of February ___, 2007 (this“*Amendment No. 3*”), among HLI Operating Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“*Borrower*”), Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“*Holdings*”), andCiticorp North America, Inc. (“*CNAI*”), as Administrative Agent on behalf of each Lenderexecuting a Lender Consent (as defined below) amends certain provisions of the Amended and RestatedCredit Agreement, dated as of April 11, 2005 (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented orotherwise modified from time to time, the “*Credit Agreement*”), among the Borrower, Holdings, theLenders and Issuers (in each case as defined therein) party thereto, CNAI, as Agent for the FirstLien Lenders (as defined therein), CNAI, as Agent for the Term C Lenders (as defined therein),CNAI, as Collateral Agent for the Secured Parties, Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., asSyndication Agent, General Electric Capital Corporation, as Documentation Agent, andCitigroup Global Markets Inc. and Lehman Brothers Inc., as Joint Book-RunningLead Managers and Joint Lead Arrangers.WITNESSETH:          Whereas, the Borrower has requested that the Lenders agree to amend certainprovisions of the Credit Agreement;          Whereas, the Borrower and the Administrative Agent wish to enter into this Amendmentfor the purpose of giving effect to such modifications in each case as more particularly set forthherein;          Whereas, the Borrower desires to enter into the assets sale transaction described on*Annex A*hereto (the *“Specified Transaction*”) and has requested that the Administrative Agent andthe Requisite Lenders consent to the Specified Transaction;          Whereas, pursuant to *Section 11.1(a) (Amendments, Waivers, Etc.)*of the CreditAgreement, the consent of the Requisite Lenders is required to effect the amendments set forthherein;          Whereas, the Lenders party to the Lenders’ Consent (constituting the RequisiteLenders) and the Administrative Agent agree, subject to the limitations and conditions set forthherein, to (a) consent to the Specified Transaction and (b) amend the Credit Agreement as set forthherein;          Now, Therefore, in consideration of the above premises, the Borrower and theAdministrative Agent, at the direction of the Lenders constituting the Requisite Lenders, agree asfollows:**ARTICLE I**