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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 157 

To prohibit a single bill or joint resolution presented by Congress to the 

President from containing multiple subjects and to require the equal 

application of laws to Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. FITZPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit a single bill or joint resolution presented by 

Congress to the President from containing multiple subjects and to require the equal application of laws to 

Members of Congress. 

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 ‘‘Citizen Legislature 

5 Anti-Corruption Reform of Congress Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘CLEAN Congress Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 157 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING MULTIPLE SUBJECTS IN SINGLE 

2 BILL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each bill, order, resolution, or 

4 vote submitted by Congress to the President under section 

5 7 of article I of the Constitution of the United States shall 

6 embrace no more than one subject, and that subject shall 

7 be clearly and descriptively expressed in the title of the 

8 bill, order, resolution or vote. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall apply 

10 with respect to the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress and 

11 each succeeding Congress. 

12 SEC. 3. REQUIRING EQUAL APPLICATION OF LAWS TO MEM13 BERS OF CONGRESS. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi15 sion of law, any provision of law that provides an exception 

16 in its application to a Member of Congress or an employee 

17 of the office of a Member of Congress shall have no effect. 

18 (b) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO EXERCISE OF OF19 FICIAL OR REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.—Subsection (a) 

20 shall not be construed to apply to provisions of law or rules 

21 which permit Members of Congress or employees of offices 

22 of Members of Congress to carry out official duties that 

23 are tied directly to lawmaking, including provisions or 

24 rules permitting Members and employees to enter and use 

25 the United States Capitol, the United States Capitol 

26 grounds, and other buildings and facilities. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 157 IH

1 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Member 

2 of Congress’’ means a Senator or a Representative in, or 

3 Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Pamela Bruce STUART, Individually and as Trustee of the J. Raymond Stuart Revocable Trust Dated January 2, 1990, as Amended, and the Marital Deduction Trust and the Non-Marital Deduction Trust Created Thereunder, Appellant, v. Catherine S. RYAN and Deborah A. Stuart, as Beneficiaries of the J. Raymond Stuart Revocable Trust Dated January 2, 1990, as Amended, and the Marital Deduction Trust and the Non-Marital Deduction Trust Created Thereunder, and The Tennis Townhouses Condominium Association, Inc., Appellees.

Nos. 4D18-1904 4D18-2500

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
James ROBINSON v. STATE

CR-16-0193

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018190EN.01000402.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/4

---

Appeal brought on 21 November 2017 by Grupo Osborne S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2017 in Case T-386/15, Jordi Nogués v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case C-652/17 P)

(2018/C 190/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Grupo Osborne S.A. (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Jordi Nogués S.L. and European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 12 April 2018, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear its own costs.

---
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 8 

Reaffirming the House of Representatives’s commitment to ensuring secure 

elections throughout the United States by recognizing that the presentation of valid photograph identification is a fundamental component 

of secure elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself and Mr. CRANE) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming the House of Representatives’s commitment to 

ensuring secure elections throughout the United States 

by recognizing that the presentation of valid photograph 

identification is a fundamental component of secure elections. 

Whereas elections allow United States citizens to empower 

their fellow citizens to be their voice in the constitutional 

republic; 

Whereas the operation of free and fair elections is vital to 

Americans’ trust in government; 

Whereas countries that hold elections without very basic security measures eventually lose the support of their people 

and erode faith in elections and the rule of law; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 8 IH 

Whereas absentee voting systems and voting by mail systems 

that lack photograph verification are less secure than inperson voting with photograph verification; 

Whereas United States citizens are required by law to present 

valid photograph identification to prove identity for a 

wide array of other interactions with government, including applications for taxpayer-funded food stamps, welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid; 

Whereas United States citizens are required by law to present 

valid photograph identification to prove identity for a 

wide array of interactions with private institutions, including to open a bank account, rent or buy a house, 

apply for a mortgage, buy, rent, or operate a motor vehicle, board an airplane, get married, purchase firearms, 

buy a cell phone, apply for fishing and hunting licenses, 

pick up prescription medication, and many other functions; and 

Whereas United States citizens possess no greater commodity 

than the franchise, and understand that protection of the 

security of voting and elections is crucial for the maintenance of the Republic and its way of life: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) reaffirms and reiterates its commitment to 

3 ensuring secure elections throughout the United 

4 States; and 

5 (2) recognizes that the presentation of valid 

6 photograph identification is a fundamental compoVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:17 Jan 04, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR8.IH HR8

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 8 IH 

1 nent of secure elections throughout the United 

2 States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2019305EN.01000902.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — proceedings brought by A

(Case C-716/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Restrictions - Initiation of debt relief proceedings - Condition of residence - Whether permissible - Article 45 TFEU - Direct effect)

(2019/C 305/11)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Party to the main proceedings

A

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a rule on jurisdiction laid down by the legislation of a Member State, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, that makes a grant of debt relief subject to the condition that the debtor must have his domicile or residence in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a rule on jurisdiction laid down by the legislation of a Member State, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, that makes a grant of debt relief subject to the condition that the debtor must have his domicile or residence in that Member State.

| 2. | Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court to disapply the residence condition laid down by a national rule on jurisdiction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, irrespective of whether the debt relief proceedings, which are also laid down by that legislation, may potentially affect the debt claims of private creditors under that legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court to disapply the residence condition laid down by a national rule on jurisdiction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, irrespective of whether the debt relief proceedings, which are also laid down by that legislation, may potentially affect the debt claims of private creditors under that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-0070-CV

In re Brian Lee Pope

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Brian Lee Pope filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for

emergency stay on February 2, 2007, challenging the district court’s January 29, 2007 order

committing him to county jail. By order dated February 2, 2007, we granted relator’s motion for

emergency stay of the order and allowed his release from custody pending our disposition of his

petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b)(3). 

By order dated February 12, 2007, the district court vacated its January 29, 2007

Order Holding Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Pay Child Support, Granting Judgment, and

for Commitment to County Jail. Because the order that is the subject of Pope’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus has been vacated, both the emergency stay and his petition are moot. We lift the

emergency stay and dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Waldrop

Filed: February 21, 2007
**Exhibit 31.2**

**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.FORM 10-QQuarter ended March 31, 2007**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven W. Ledbetter, certify that:

1)             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern HeritageBancshares, Inc.

2)             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period bythis quarterly report;

3)             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thequarterly report;

4)             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

a)             designed such disclosure controlsand procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2007 (the “EvaluationDate”);

c)             presented in this quarterly reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; and

d)            disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

5)             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent function):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| /s/ Steven W. Ledbetter |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Steven W. Ledbetter     |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| May 15, 2007            |   |   |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 716-717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31596]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20543 and #20544; GEORGIA Disaster Number GA-
20010]

Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Georgia

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4821-DR), dated September 
24, 2024.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Debby.

DATES: Issued on December 26, 2024.
    Incident Period: August 4, 2024 through August 20, 2024.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: February 7, 2025.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: June 24, 
2025.

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 
apply for a disaster assistance loan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Georgia, dated September 24, 2024, is 
hereby amended to extend the deadline for

[[Page 717]]

filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster 
to February 7, 2025.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Alejandro Contreras,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & 
Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2024-31596 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN HOWELL MASSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BIOLA UNIVERSITY, INC., a California 

Non-Profit Religious Corporation; DOES, 1 

to 10, Inclusive, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56128 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09626-CJC-JDE 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 7, 2022**

Before: D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Evelyn Howell Massey appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing 

her discrimination action against Biola University, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 7 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

state a claim. Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 967 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020)

(citation omitted). We affirm.

Massey failed to state a Title IX claim because her second amended 

complaint did not allege discrimination on the basis of sex. See id. (elements of 

Title IX claim).

Massey failed to state a Title VI claim because she did not sufficiently allege 

either that Biola University engaged in race discrimination or that officials with 

power to take corrective measures were deliberately indifferent to known acts of 

discrimination. See Yu v. Idaho State Univ., 15 F.4th 1236, 1242 (9th Cir. 2021); 

see also United States v. Cty. of Maricopa, 889 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 2018).

Massey failed to state a First Amendment or due process claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 because Biola University did not act under color of state law. See 

Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., 965 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2020) (reasoning that 

receipt of government funds “is insufficient to convert a private university into a 

state actor.”).

The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over Massey’s state law claims after dismissing all of her federal claims. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Platt v. Moore, 15 F.4th 895, 909 (9th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2592
MCC SPECIAL PURPOSE CORPORATION I, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEBORAH S. KOLODNER, Defendant - Appellant, and MAURICE C. WILSON; CARTER MEDICAL SERVICES OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Plaza Therapy; PLAZA APPLIANCES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1201) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Deborah S. Kolodner, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Francis O’Hagan Murphy, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Deborah S. Kolodner appeals the district court’s order granting a monetary judgment against her in favor of the Appellee. The judgment was based on a settlement agreement, to which Kolodner was a party. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EUGENE COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2)

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Eugene Cooper appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for clarification of the denial of a sentence

reduction for substantial assistance. ∗ We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Cooper , No. 4:00-cr-01033-CWH-2 (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2008). 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

∗ On our initial remand for a determination of excusable neglect or good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), the district court found no excusable neglect based on its assessment of the merits of the appeal. Such a merits review of its own order is not the purpose of a limited remand under Rule 4(b)(4). However, because the time limits of Rule 4(b) are not jurisdictional, see Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007); United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the Government has not moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, we decline to dismiss the appeal as untimely and instead address the merits of the motion for
clarification.
William Bernard JAMES v. STATE

CR-16-0945

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
Case 4:04-cv-00905-Y Document 1 Filed 12/13/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
Z.T.D. v. Jefferson County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160372

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.