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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 192 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2025 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require Amtrak 

to include information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain Amtrak executives, and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 192 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Amtrak Executive 

3 Bonus Disclosure Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMTRAK REPORTS AND AUDITS. 

5 Section 24315(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘, and make available to the 

8 public on the website of Amtrak,’’ after ‘‘submit to 

9 Congress’’; and 

10 (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(2) provide the annual base pay and any 

13 bonus compensation paid to a member of the execu14 tive leadership team (including the chief executive 

15 officer, president, and officers) of Amtrak, including 

16 the criteria and metrics used to determine any such 

17 bonus compensation; and’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 13, 

2025. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2019054EN.01001602.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hannover

(Case C-593/17) (1)

(2019/C 54/22)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.

---
Algalita DESUME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Order entered September 9, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00473-CV

TIMOTHY JOHN WHALEN AND THE WHALEN LAW FIRM, PLLC, Appellants

V.

CHARLES WILLIAM JOHNSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-04182

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s September 8, 2016 third motion to extend time to file his brief 

and ORDER appellee’s brief filed no later than October 11, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 37 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 37

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the people of the United States 
   should have continuous access to timely, up-to-date, and accurate 
                          health information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2025

Mr. Schatz (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Van 
Hollen, Mr. Welch, Mr. Markey, Mr. Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Smith, and 
 Ms. Klobuchar) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
       to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the people of the United States 
   should have continuous access to timely, up-to-date, and accurate 
                          health information.

Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services provides crucial external 
        communications to protect the health and well-being of the people of the 
        United States;
Whereas urgent communications provided by the Department of Health and Human 
        Services help health care providers and the public learn about and 
        respond to public health incidents and threats, including outbreaks of 
        infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and the opioid overdose 
        epidemic;
Whereas the United States has published the epidemiological digest, Morbidity 
        and Mortality Weekly Report, every week since 1961;
Whereas foodborne disease outbreak notices published by the Department of Health 
        and Human Services are essential in coordinating and investigating 
        illness, helping to respond to the estimated 48,000,000 people who get 
        sick from foodborne disease each year in the United States; and
Whereas, in 2024, public health information reported through the Health Alert 
        Network of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included 
        information regarding increased risks in the United States of avian 
        influenza, dengue virus, and measles: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the people of the 
United States should have continuous access to timely, up-to-date, and 
accurate health information provided through the Department of Health 
and Human Services.
                                 <all>
```
Lawrence Aubry KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 58 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 58

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make voting in a 
 Federal election by an unlawfully present alien an aggravated felony, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

    Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself and Ms. Mace) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make voting in a 
 Federal election by an unlawfully present alien an aggravated felony, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Voter Integrity Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL VOTING.

    (a) Aggravated Felony.--Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (U), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(V) an offense described in section 611 of title 
                18, United States Code, committed by an alien who is 
                unlawfully present in the United States.''.
    (b) Deportable Offense.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                    ``(G) Voting offenses.--Any alien who is unlawfully 
                present in the United States and who knowingly commits 
                a violation of section 611 of title 18, United States 
                Code, is deportable.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Lines Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Raymond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ CHARLES G. RAYMOND               
|Charles G. Raymond                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)        

April 28, 2006



-34-
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 85 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow the pooling 

of tips among all employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to allow 

the pooling of tips among all employees, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Flexi5 bility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TIP POOLING. 

7 Section 3(m)(2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 

8 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘em10 ployees who customarily and regularly receive tips’’ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 85 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘pools of employees described in sub2 paragraph (C)’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(C) The pools of employees described in this sub5 paragraph are as follows: 

6 ‘‘(i) Employees who customarily and regularly 

7 receive tips. 

8 ‘‘(ii) Employees who— 

9 ‘‘(I) customarily and regularly receive tips 

10 and receive a cash wage paid by the employer 

11 that is not less than the wage in effect under 

12 section 6(a)(1); and 

13 ‘‘(II) do not customarily and regularly re14 ceive tips.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JARROD KEVIN DIXON, a/k/a Jerod,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:02-cr-00441-TLW-1)

Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, Rose

Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

On January 29, 2003, Jarrod Kevin Dixon was sentenced to

seventy-one months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised

release after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On December

13, 2007, the district court found Dixon in violation of the terms

and conditions of his supervised release and sentenced him to

twenty-four months’ imprisonment - the statutory maximum - and an

additional one year term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(3) (2000); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp.

2007). On appeal, Dixon asserts that the district court plainly

erred in sentencing him to an additional year of supervised

release. The Government agrees and has filed a motion to remand

for resentencing. 

On January 26, 2002, when Dixon committed the underlying

offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) permitted reimposition of supervised

release only if the district court imposed less than the maximum

prison term for a defendant’s supervised release violation. Thus,

because the active prison term imposed upon Dixon for violation of

supervised release was the statutory maximum, the imposition of an

additional one year term of supervised release on Dixon constituted

plain error that affected his substantial rights. United States v.

Castorani, 88 F. App’x 552 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (citing

United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002).
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that Dixon

violated the terms of supervised release, vacate the sentence

imposed by the district court, and remand for resentencing. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED

IN PART, AND REMANDED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

THE BANCORP BANK, N.A., 

INTERACTIVE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. and 

INCOMM FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Defendants-Below, 

Appellants/Cross Appellees, 

v. 

RUSSELL S. ROGERS, 

Plaintiff-Relator-Below, 

Appellee/Cross Appellant. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 38, 2023 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. N18C-09-240 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: October 18, 2023 

 Decided: December 11, 2023 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW and

GRIFFITHS, Justices. 

ORDER

 

 This 11th day of December 2023, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the 

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2023. 
2 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
Alan M. CANTER v. Annette Land CANTER

2160263

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jack JEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
# C_2019004EN.01000901.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL v MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com

(Case C-595/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Jurisdiction clause in a distribution contract - Action for damages by the distributor based on the infringement of Article 102 TFEU by the supplier)

(2019/C 4/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Apple Sales International, Apple Inc., Apple retail France EURL

Defendants: MJA, acting as liquidator of eBizcuss.com

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.

| 2. | Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause, in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU, that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 437,18.12.2017.

---
Darleen JACOBS v. Jack E. TRUITT, et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0294

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
Opinion issued July 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00404-CR

———————————

JOHN CLIFTON WILBANKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1576594

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, John Clifton Wilbanks, was indicted on the second-degree felony 

offense of indecency with a child by contact.

1 Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement 

with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the reduced third-degree felony offense of 

 

1 TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 21.11(a)(1), (d).
2

indecency with a child by exposure,

2 with an agreed punishment recommendation of 

two years’ incarceration. The trial court accepted the plea agreement, found 

appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at two years’ incarceration. The trial 

court certified that this case is a plea-bargain case and appellant has no right of 

appeal. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed 

if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. The trial 

court’s certification states that this is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no 

right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615. The 

record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because 

appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having 

jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to 

 

2

Id. §§ 21.11(a)(2), (d).
3

appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, 

regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
# C_2017231EN.01000501.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2017 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff

(Case C-161/17)

(2017/C 231/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Applicant:

Defendant: Dirk Renckhoff

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the inclusion of a work — which is freely accessible to all internet users on a third-party website with the consent of the copyright holder — on a person’s own publicly accessible website constitute a making available of that work to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) if the work is first copied onto a server and is uploaded from there to that person’s own website?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

1

---
Christopher James GARLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Rufus J. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3312

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 9, 2019

Rufus J. Young, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**State v. Perkins* , 977 So.2d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

EDWARDS, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.