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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 56 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 56

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for 
    purposes of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

   Mr. Kirk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for 
    purposes of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT.

    (a) Local Educational Agencies.--Notwithstanding section 8013(9)(B) 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
7713(9)(B)), North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, North 
Shore District 112, and Township High School District 113 in Lake 
County, Illinois, and Glenview Public School District 34 and Glenbrook 
High School District 225 in Cook County, Illinois, shall be considered 
local educational agencies as such term is used in and for purposes of 
title VIII of such Act.
    (b) Computation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
federally connected children (as determined under section 8003(a) of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a))) 
who are in attendance in the North Shore District 112, Township High 
School District 113, Glenview Public School District 34, and Glenbrook 
High School District 225 described in subsection (a), shall be 
considered to be in attendance in the North Chicago Community Unit 
School District 187 described in subsection (a), solely for purposes of 
computing the amount that the North Chicago Community Unit School 
District 187 is eligible to receive under subsection (b) or (d) of such 
section, if--
            (1) such school districts have entered into an agreement 
        for such students to be so considered and for the equitable 
        apportionment among all such school districts of any amount 
        received by the North Chicago Community Unit School District 
        187 under such section; and
            (2) any amount apportioned among all such school districts 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) is used by such school districts only 
        for the direct provision of educational services.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021226EN.01000301.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/3

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2021/C 226/03)

1.

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









  Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain graphite electrode systems | India | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/422 of 9 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (OJ L 64, 10. 3.2017, p. 46) | 11.3.2022 |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain graphite electrode systems

India

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/422 of 9 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(OJ L 64, 10. 3.2017, p. 46)

11.3.2022

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

1

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5733 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5733

 To permit health care providers to disclose certain protected health 
               information to law enforcement officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2010

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit health care providers to disclose certain protected health 
               information to law enforcement officials.

    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 ``Ed Thomas Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN PATIENT INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICIALS.

    (a) In General.--If--
            (1) an individual is accompanied by a law enforcement 
        official at the time such individual seeks care from a covered 
        entity;
            (2) such official provides to such entity a request, in 
        writing, that the entity disclose to the official protected 
        health information relating to such individual; and
            (3) such written request is made during the period that 
        begins when such individual seeks such care and ends 24 hours 
        after such individual is discharged from such care or otherwise 
        stops receiving such care,
section 164.512(f)(1) of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, shall 
apply to the disclosure of such information (including the date of 
discharge) to the law enforcement agency that employs such official by 
a covered entity in the same manner that such section applies to the 
disclosure of information by a covered entity in response to 
administrative requests.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
promulgate regulations to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Coelho, Appellant.

Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
PROMISSORY NOTE


To:     BIG SKY MANAGEMENT LTD.            Principal Sum:      US $100,000.00
                                           Expiry:             JANUARY 29, 2002


FOR THE  FOLLOWING: ONE  HUNDRED THOUSAND US DOLLARS (USD $100,000.00) and other
                     --------------------------------------------------
good  and  valuable  consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the  Undersigned  promises  to  pay to DYNAMIC  VENTURES INC., 114 West Magnolia
                                       -----------------------
Street, Suite 400-127, Bellingham, Washington, USA, or such address as may be
designated by Big Sky Management Ltd., or by any holder of this note, the sum of
USD $100,000.00 , plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid
balance beginning from the date the funds are advanced until fully paid.

The repayment of this Note (including principal and interest) is due in full on
or before January 29, 2002 (1 year from the above date).

TERMS OF REPAYMENT

1.     This  note  may  be  repaid  in  whole  or  in  part  without  penalty.

2.   In the event of the failure to make any payment when due, the holder of
     this Note may declare the entire principal balance and accrued interest
     immediately due and payable. Any overdue payment shall bear interest at the
     rate of twelve percent (10%) per annum or the maximum rate permitted by
     law, whichever is lower.

3.   Security Lien. The maker of this Note hereby grants to the Holder a
     security interest in any and all corporate property, including but not
     limited to, real property, inventory, receivables, and office equipment.

4.   All parties to this Note, including the Undersigned and any endorser or
     guarantors, if any, jointly and severally waive presentment, notice or
     dishonor, and diligence in collecting and all agree to remain fully obliged
     under the terms of this Note even if, without notice, the time for payment
     is extended, or the Note is renewed or modified, or one or more of the
     parties is released or discharged, or the release or substitution of any
     collateral given as security for the payment of the Note.

5.   If this note is not paid promptly in accordance with it's terms, the
     undersigned agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable
     attorney's fees. In the event that any judgement is obtained under this
     Note, the Undersigned waive, to the extent permitted under law, the benefit
     of any law exempting their property, or any part of it.

Date effective as of the 29th day of January, 2001.
                         ----        -------

DYNAMIC VENTURES INC.



-------------------------------
          President


<PAGE>
Base Salaries of Executive Officers of the Registrant



 Exhibit 10.6 
 Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation 
 Base Salaries of
Executive Officers of the Registrant 
 As of March 26, 2010, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the executive
officers of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation: 
  

				
	 Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.
	  	$	192,400
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  		
		
	Carroll E. Shelton	  	$	118,556
	 Vice President
	  		
		
	Bryan M. Lemley	  	$	104,400
	 Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### MACKAY, Appellant, v. DANZIG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 1, 1896.)

Action by Ro'se Mackay against Abraham A. Danzig.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Order entered December 20, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00479
- CR
GREGORY BERNARD WASHINGTON , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1875904
- H

O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. Appellant’s brief is overdue. Appellant’s brief was originally due August 18, 2022. Pursuant to this Court’s order granting appella nt’s second motion for extension of time to file the brief, appellant’s brief was due October 31, 2022. On November 16, 2022, appellant’s brief had not been filed, and this Court abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact and recommendations concerning appellant’s brief. The same day, appellant filedhis third motion for extension of time to file the brief . The trial court held a

hearing on November 22, 2022, and made findings that appellant desires to
pr osecute the appeal and is indigent. The trial court recommended that we grant counsel an additional thirty days to file appellant’s brief. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. W e ORDER appellant’ s counsel, Jeff Buchwald, to file appellant’s brief by January 20, 202 3 . Failure to file the brief by January 20, 202 3 , may result in Mr. Buchwald’s removal as counsel for appellant in this case.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Hon orable Tina Yoo Clinton, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 1, and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Ray DUNKINS, Jr., also known as Little Doug, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11007

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., FCI El Reno, El Reno, OK, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., federal prisoner # 22619-077, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and to manufacture cocaine base, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute cocaine base; and of use of a firearm during and in relationship to a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and to a consecutive term of five years of imprisonment on the *481firearm count. *See United States v. Fisher,*22 F.3d 574, 575-76 (5th Cir.1994).

In October 2008, the district court denied Dunkins’s “motion to unfiled the original application and affidavit for the search warrant” that had been filed in his criminal case in 1991 because it lacked the judicial officer’s signature. On appeal, this court found that this was a meaningless, unauthorized motion with no jurisdictional basis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *United States v. Dunkins,*No. 08-11033 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (unpublished).

Dunkins seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) challenging the October 2008 ruling. Because neither the motion to unfiled nor the Rule 60(b) motion was filed in a habeas case, a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); *Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir.2007).

In addition he moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Dunkins’s IFP motion and certified that his appeal was not taken in good faith because he failed to present a nonfrivolous, arguable issue for appeal. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Dunkins is challenging the district court’s certification. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5). Dunkins has failed to show that his appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Dunkins is WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Williams, Appellant.

The defendant contends that a shotgun was improperly admitted into evidence because there was insufficient proof connecting him to it. We disagree.

The shotgun was one of a few items which was thrown out of a van in which the defendant was a passenger during a high-speed chase through Brooklyn. The officers involved in the chase sent out a radio call specifying the location where *617the items had been thrown, and within 15 minutes two brother officers arrived at the scene. They testified that there were no pedestrians in the area. They searched and found items matching the descriptions given by the pursuing officers, among them the shotgun.

The connection between the shotgun and the defendant cannot fairly be said to be so tenuous as to be improbable *(see, People v Mirenda,*23 NY2d 439), and thus the shotgun was properly admitted *(see, People v Cunningham,*116 AD2d 585). The shotgun was not irrelevant to the instant case as the defendant was charged, *inter alia,*with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### WELDON et al., Appellants, v. DE LISLE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by George Weldon and another against Fred J. De Lisle and another.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
HOMESTAKE RESERVOIRLatitude: 39.367Longitude: -106.459Elevation: None

HOMESTAKE RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

LINITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

Docket Number: 2023-0056

VS

MISLE Activitv lD: 7629'791

JAMES HERRING

Respondent.

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on February 15,

2023, seeking revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On Oct 10,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Motion of Withdrawal from docket as:

Respondent signed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement in accordance with 46 CFR $ 5.203.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice eftective this date. The

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated october 11, 2023 at

Baltimore, MD

/-a/rr4r,'V//. Wotz.

Lauren Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
#### Troy Savings Bank, Appellant, v Dovrich 39A Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Troy Savings Bank, *256Plaintiff, v 22nd Street Surplus Holding Company et al., Defendants. Troy Savings Bank, Appellant, v Richard H. Maidman et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Richard H. Maidman and David A. Maidman, a Partnership, Respondent, v Troy Savings Bank, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

— Order and partial judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered on or about June 16, 1986, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2419 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2419

To amend the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize funding for the 
                     National Institutes of Health.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Barton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize funding for the 
                     National Institutes of Health.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 402A(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
282a(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking at the end ``and'';
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking at the end the period 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
                    ``(D) $31,811,000,000 for fiscal year 2016;
                    ``(E) $33,331,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; and
                    ``(F) $34,851,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.''.
                                 <all>
```
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

January 29, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00053-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 2013-5253-2

Style: JORGE MARTINEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

The judgment of the trial court was DISMISSED by this Court on the 7th day of August, 

2014. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an 

acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of the mandate. Please review 

the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of the mandate and submit through 

the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Stephen W. Byrne (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Mark Skurka (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13-14-00053-CR this 

________ day of _________________, 2015.

District/County Clerk, 

By :____________________________