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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2451 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 247
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2451

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2019

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode Island, as the ``Elizabeth 
                      Buffum Chace Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ELIZABETH BUFFUM CHACE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode Island, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Elizabeth Buffum Chace Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Elizabeth 
Buffum Chace Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 247

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2451

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 575 Dexter Street in Central Falls, Rhode Island, as the ``Elizabeth 
                      Buffum Chace Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 17, 2019

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### In the Matter of Oscar Cintron, Appellant, v Judith A. Calogero, as Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted March 22, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

Motion by Fifth Avenue Committee et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
[925 NE2d 81, 899 NYS2d 749]

#### Travis J. Bright, an Infant, by His Parent and Guardian, Gary Bright, et al., Appellants, v Nancy E. McGowan et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Decided February 16, 2010

*746APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Basch & Keegan, LLP,*Kingston *(Derek J. Spada*of counsel), for appellants.

*Gordon & Silber, P.C.,*New York City *(Shadrach A. Stanleigh*and *Andrew B. Kaufman*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment denied. In opposition to defendants’ prima facie case, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2493 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization period 

for emergency treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical 

facilities under the Veterans Community Care Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. MEADOWS, 

Mr. GALLAGHER, and Mr. FULCHER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization period for emergency treatment in non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities under the 

Veterans Community Care Program. 

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 ‘‘Addressing Care 

5 Timelines for Veterans Act’’ or the ‘‘ACT for Veterans 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2493 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION PERIOD FOR EMERGENCY TREAT2 MENT IN NON-DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

3 AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITIES. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION PERIOD.—Section 1703(a)(3) of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘A covered veteran’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), 

8 a covered veteran’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(B) In the case of an emergency which existed at 

12 the time of admission of a covered veteran to a health care 

13 provider, the Secretary shall deem the care or services re14 ceived by the veteran during such admission to be author15 ized under subparagraph (A) if the covered veteran (or 

16 an individual acting on behalf of the covered veteran) 

17 makes an application for such authorization during the pe18 riod following such admission that the Secretary deter19 mines appropriate for purposes of this paragraph, except 

20 such period may not be less than 96 hours.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date specified in 

23 section 101(b) of the Caring for Our Veterans Act of 2018 

24 (38 U.S.C. 1703 note; Public Law 115–182; 132 Stat. 

25 1403). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Dismissed and Opinion Filed August 15, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01247-CV ROGER AND EDNA PAYNE, Appellants V. GURLEY PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-04830-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellants’ brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated May 17, 2016, we notified appellants the time for filing their brief had ex pired. We directed appella nts to file both their brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellants that failure to file their
brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellants have not fi led their brief, an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of their brief.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

151247F.P05 / Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ROGER AND EDNA PAYNE, Appellants

No. 05-15-01247-CV V.
GURLEY PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-04830-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee GURLEY PLACE APAR TMENTS recover its costs of this appeal from appellants ROGER AND EDNA PAYNE.

Judgment entered August 15, 2016.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7398

JAMES C. WHALEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:20-cv-04366-HMH)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. Whaley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James C. Whaley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Whaley that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Whaley received proper 

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).*

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Whaley’s motion for 

discovery, and dismiss the appeal. 

* To the extent Whaley asserts on appeal that he is actually innocent of his 

underlying criminal offenses, a claim he preserved below, we conclude that he fails to make 

the requisite showing. See Mahdi v. Stirling, 20 F.4th 846, 893 n.32 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

that showing of actual innocence requires demonstrating “factual innocence, not mere legal 

insufficiency” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7398 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
##### 



RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
APPROACH RESOURCES INC.
  ONE:
 TWO:
 THREE:
 Article 1. NAME
 Corporation
 Article 2. REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT
  Article 3. PURPOSE AND POWERS
 DGCL
 Article 4. CAPITAL STOCK
 4.1. Authorized Shares
 Common Stock Preferred Stock




---



##### 



4.2. Common Stock
    4.3. Preferred Stock
          2




---



##### 



4.4. Preemptive Rights
  Article 5. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 5.1. Management
   3




---



##### 



provided provided,
further
  Class
    
    Expiration of Term
    
    DirectorsI
    
    Next succeeding annual meeting
    
    Sheldon B. LubarChristopher J. WhyteII
    
    Second succeeding annual meeting
    
    James H. BrandiJames C. CrainIII
    
    Third succeeding annual meeting
    
    J. Ross CraftBryan H. Lawrence
   4




---



##### 



5.2. Stockholder Nominations of Directors and Introduction of Business
  Article 6. DIRECTOR AND OFFICER LIABILITY
 6.1 Elimination of Director and Officer Liability
  6.2 Indemnification and Insurance
 Right to Indemnification. proceeding
 5




---



##### 



Nonexclusivity of Rights.
 Insurance.
 Severability.
 Article 7. TERM
  Article 8. BYLAWS
  6




---



##### 



Article 9. STOCKHOLDER MEETINGS
  Article 10. AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
  Article 11. RENUNCIATION OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
 Renouncement of Business Opportunities Business Opportunity Renounced Business Opportunity
 7




---



##### 



Consent
 Amendment
 Term
  Affiliate
 Designated Parties
 E&P Business
 Hydrocarbons
 8




---



##### 



Person
 Subsidiary Subsidiaries




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 APPROACH RESOURCES INC.By:
    /s/ J. Ross CraftJ. Ross Craft,President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2458 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2458

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require a certain 
  percentage of funds appropriated for revolving fund capitalization 
       grants be used for green projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2019

 Ms. Mucarsel-Powell introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require a certain 
  percentage of funds appropriated for revolving fund capitalization 
       grants be used for green projects, 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 ``Water Infrastructure Sustainability 
and Efficiency Act'' or the ``WISE Act''.

SEC. 2. CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

    Section 602(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1382(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (13), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(15) beginning on the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project 
        applications and with respect to any funds for capitalization 
        grants made available in any appropriations Act that the State 
        receives, the State will use not less than 20 percent of such 
        funds for projects to address green infrastructure, water or 
        energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally 
        innovative activities.''.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Subsequent arrangement. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice has been issued under the authority of section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy between the United States and Canada and Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). 

This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 72,414 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride, 48,952 kg of which is uranium, from the Cameco Corporation, Ontario, Canada to Urenco Capenhurst, England. The material, which is now located at Cameco Corp., Port Hope, Ontario, will be transferred to Urenco for toll enrichment. Upon completion of the toll enrichment, the material will be transferred to the Commonwealth Edison Company, Downers Grove, IL for use as fuel. The uranium hexafluoride was originally obtained by the Cameco Corp. pursuant to export license number XSOU8744. 

In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement is not inimical to the common defense and security. 

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice. 

Dated: May 21, 2001.

For the Department of Energy.

Trisha Dedik, 

Director, International Policy and Analysis for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.

[FR Doc. 01-13246 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAM Oil Resources & Technology Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Keith A. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 17thday of June, 2009.

KEITH A. JOHNSONKeith A. JohnsonChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer














---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. HOOKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-5137.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 29, 2010.

James Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bra-denham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

*852Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James E. Hooker appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to obstruct, delay and affect commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), one count of robbery and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) & 2, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) & 2 (West 2000 *&*Supp.2010). Hooker argues that the district court abused its discretion in directing that an interpreter be used for two Korean eyewitnesses. Finding no error, we affirm.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1) (2006), the district court is required to appoint an interpreter if the witness “speaks only or primarily a language other than English ... so as to inhibit such witness’ comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony.” The use of an interpreter is a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. *United States v. Rodriguez,*424 F.2d 205, 206 (4th Cir.1970). “This rule is appropriate because the trial judge is in the best position to assess a defendant’s or witness’ language usage, comfort level and intelligibility.” *United States v. Hasan,*609 F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion, this court must determine whether the trial court’s decision made the trial fundamentally unfair. *United States v. Belfast,*611 F.3d 783, 821 (11th Cir.2010).

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion. There is nothing to suggest that the trial court’s decision resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we affirm Hooker’s convictions and sentence. 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.*
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2316 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal medical 

assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian organizations, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2019 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. COLE, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. MOORE, Mr. 

GALLEGO, Ms. KENDRA S. HORN of Oklahoma, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. 

DELBENE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. TORRES

SMALL of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

a Federal medical assistance percentage of 100 percent 

for urban Indian organizations, 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. FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PER4 CENTAGE FOR URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZA5 TIONS. 

6 Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 1396d(b)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘by an Indian 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2316 IH

1 tribe or tribal organization (as defined in section 4 of the 

2 Indian Health Care Improvement Act)’’ the following: ‘‘, 

3 or through an urban Indian organization (as defined in 

4 section 4 of such Act) pursuant to a grant or contract 

5 with the Indian Health Service under title V of the Indian 

6 Health Care Improvement Act’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-12-0165-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JULY 10, 2012

______________________________

DAMIEN HERNANDEZ CORTEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 320th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 62,862-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Pending before the court is the appeal of Damien Hernandez Cortez. No 

certificate of right to appeal appears of record, however. Because of that, the trial court 

and district clerk were notified of the missing item and directed to supplement the record 

with such a signed certificate by June 25, 2012, but one has not been received to date. 

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal as mandated by Texas Rule of Appellate 
2

Procedure 25.2(d). We would entertain a timely motion for rehearing accompanied by 

the requisite certification should one be acquired.

Per Curiam 

Do not publish.