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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3736 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal 

campaign committee of a candidate in a general election for the office 

of President to file a certification that the candidate has undergone 

a medical examination conducted by a medical office under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2019 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

require the principal campaign committee of a candidate 

in a general election for the office of President to file 

a certification that the candidate has undergone a medical examination conducted by a medical office under 

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy. 

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 ‘‘Standardizing Testing 

5 and Accountability Before Large Elections Giving Electors 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3736 IH

1 Necessary Information for Unobstructed Selection Act’’ or 

2 the ‘‘STABLE GENIUS Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CAN4 DIDATES. 

5 (a) REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

6 TO CERTIFY THAT CANDIDATE HAS UNDERGONE EXAM7 INATION.—Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign 

8 Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(j) CERTIFICATION OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF

11 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.— 

12 ‘‘(1) REQUIRING FILING OF CERTIFICATION.— 

13 The principal campaign committee of a candidate for 

14 election for the office of President shall file a report 

15 with the Commission under this section containing— 

16 ‘‘(A) a certification that a medical office 

17 under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 

18 Navy conducted a medical examination of the 

19 candidate after the candidate won the nomina20 tion of a political party to run as a candidate 

21 in the general election for such office; and 

22 ‘‘(B) the results of such medical examina23 tion. 

24 ‘‘(2) DEADLINE.—A principal campaign com25 mittee of a candidate for election for the office of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3736 IH

1 President shall file the report required under para2 graph (1) not later than 21 days after the date on 

3 which the candidate won the political party’s nomi4 nation to run as a candidate in the general elec5 tion.’’. 

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

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the general elec8 tion for the office of President held in November 2020 

9 and each succeeding general election for such office. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
PAICE LLC, et al., petitioners, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 17-222.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Steven B. DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7207.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Christopher Bermudez HERRERA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-7772.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
Daniel Garcia BELLO, aka Daniel Bello, aka Daniel Garcia, aka Daniel Belo, aka Daniel R. Garcia, aka Daniel Rodrigo Garcia, aka Daniel Garcia-BELO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES; Fidel Flores, petitioner, v. United States; Jose Sanchez Olivarez, aka Jose G. Sanchez, aka Jose Guadalup Olivarez Sanchez, aka Jose Guadalup Olivare Sanchez, aka Guadalupe Sanchez-Olivarez, petitioner, v. United States; Genaro Mayorga-Salazar, petitioner, v. United States; Mario Alberto Amaya-Guerrero, aka Mario A. Amaya, petitioner, v. United States; Rudy Martinez-Castillo, aka Maurio Gonzales, aka Alfredo Noges-Saucedo, aka Redolfo Martinez-Castillo, aka Alfredo Martinez-Savavedra, petitioner, v. United States; Lugardo Vazquez-Hernandez, petitioner, v. United States; Rudith Valmore Guerrero-Araniva, aka Rudith Valmore Araniva-Guerrero, petitioner, v. United States; Tito Olvera-Castro, petitioner, v. United States; Angel De Jesus Sanabia-Sanchez, aka Angel Sarabia-Sanchez, petitioner, v. United States; Carlos Trejo-Dominguez, aka Carlos Dominguez Trejo, aka Carlos Hernandez-Herrera, petitioner, v. United States; Evaristo Reyes-Diaz, petitioner, v. United States; Lino Isaac Carrillo-Hernandez, aka Lino Carrillo-Hernandez, aka Lino Carillo-Hernandez, aka Lino Isaac Carrillo, aka Lino Isaac Hernandez Carillo, aka Lino Carrillo Hernandez, petitioner, v. United States; Francisco De Jesus Trevino-Rodriguez, petitioner, v. United States; and Hector Alexander Cabrera, petitioner, v. United States.

No. 16-7667.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and the petition for writ of certiorari as to Daniel G. Bello, Fidel Flores, Jose S. Olivarez, Rudy Martinez-Castillo, Lugardo Vazquez-Hernandez, Angel D. Sanabia-Sanchez, Lino I. Carrillo-Hernandez, and Hector A. Cabrera are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Sessions v. Dimaya,* 584 U.S ----, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018). The petition for writ of certiorari as to Genaro Mayorga-Salazar, Marion A. Amaya-Guerrero, Rudith V. Guerreroraniva, Tito Olvera-Castro, Carlos Trejo-Dominguez, Evaristo Reyes-Diaz, and Francisco D. Trevino-Rodriguez is denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 18, 2014

NO. 03-13-00584-CV

Kyle Lynn Ashley, Appellant

v.

Citimortgage, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 15, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall pay 

all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
# C_2011103EN.01000802.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium)) — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge

(Case C-25/10) (1)

1

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Inheritance tax - Legacies in favour of non-profit-making bodies - Refusal to apply a reduced rate where those bodies have their centre of operations in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had actually lived or worked - Restriction - Justification)

2011/C 103/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 18, 45, 49 and 54 TFEU — Succession duties — Refusal to apply the reduced rate applicable to legacies to non-profit-making associations and ‘public-interest foundations’ in cases where those associations and foundations have their seat in a Member State other than that in which the deceased person resided or worked — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Restriction of the freedom of establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State which reserves application of succession duties at the reduced rate to non-profit-making bodies which have their centre of operations in that Member State or in the Member State in which, at the time of death, the deceased actually resided or had his place of work, or in which he had previously actually resided or had his place of work.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
# L_2005084EN.01002101.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 84/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 84/21

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Chile

The Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Chile (1) entered into force on 1 March 2005, the procedures provided for in Article 198 of the Agreement having been completed on 28 February 2005.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 3 and OJ L 332, 19.12.2003, p. 64.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1706

JOHN D. BLACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES SHARPE, Mayor, Newark, New Jersey;

CHRISTIE WHITMAN, Governor, New Jersey;

RICHARD L. GRUBER, Esquire,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-96-454-5-H)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Black, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on November 8, 1996;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on May 11, 1998, which is

beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Black’s

motion to amend his complaint. 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.

DISMISSED
Daryl Lee INGRAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8168.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Edward EAVES, petitioner, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 17-7467.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07611]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan 
Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et 
seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 
CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to 
become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets 
or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a 
savings association.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on whether the 
proposed transaction complies with the standards enumerated in the HOLA 
(12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 9, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e1cdcfcfc7ccd6d18cc3d2d2cecbc1c3d6cbcdccd1e2d2cacbce8cc4d0c08ccdd0c5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b587476767e756f68357a6b6b7772787a6f727475685b6b737277357d69793574697c">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Walden MHC and Walden Bancorp, Inc., both of Montgomery, New 
York; to become a mutual savings and loan holding company and a mid-
tier stock savings and loan holding company, respectively, by acquiring 
Walden Savings Bank, Montgomery, New York, in connection with Walden 
Savings Bank's conversion from mutual to stock form.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 2022.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-07611 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6230

LEROY STATON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-00745-TMC)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Staton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, John William 

McIntosh, Assistant Attorneys General, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Staton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Staton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Octavio RAYA-ORTEGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8106.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3914 

To apologize for the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To apologize for the treatment of Italian Americans during 

World War II. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APOLOGY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ITALIAN 

4 AMERICANS DURING WORLD WAR II. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) Over 15 million Italians have immigrated to 

7 the United States since 1852. 

8 (2) Italian immigrants have provided a culture 

9 and heritage that has enriched American life. 

10 (3) The treatment of Italian Americans during 

11 World War II was authorized by the Act of July 6, 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3914 IH

1 1798 (Chapter 66, Sec. 1; 1 Stat. 577; 50 U.S.C. 

2 21; commonly known as the Alien Enemies Act). 

3 (4) Additional authority for the treatment of 

4 Italian Americans during World War II was based 

5 on Executive Order 9066 (7 Fed. Reg. 1407) and 

6 Executive Order 9102 (7 Fed. Reg. 2165). 

7 (5) These orders required Italian-born citizens 

8 and their families to carry identification cards, face 

9 travel restrictions, and obey curfews. 

10 (6) These orders authorized the seizure of per11 sonal property. 

12 (7) 10,000 Italian Americans living on the West 

13 Coast were forced to leave their homes and were 

14 prohibited from entering coastal zones during World 

15 War II. 

16 (8) Thousands of Italian-American immigrants 

17 were arrested and hundreds were interned in mili18 tary camps during World War II. 

19 (9) The treatment of Italian Americans during 

20 World War II needs to be acknowledged in order to 

21 remember those whose lives were unjustly disrupted 

22 and whose freedoms were violated. 

23 (10) Acknowledging and apologizing for the 

24 treatment of Italian Americans during World War II 

25 would help repair the Italian-American community 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3914 IH

1 and would discourage the occurrence of similar in2 justices and violations of civil liberties in the future. 

3 (b) STATEMENT OF CONGRESS.—For these funda4 mental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitu5 tional rights of Italian Americans during World War II, 

6 Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation. 

Æ 


Pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Edmond ZOICA, petitioner, v. Thomas MACKIE, Warden.

No. 16-6419.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Kevin WARD, petitioner, v. Bradley SMITH, et al.

No. 16-9679.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3859 

To authorize the Attorney General to appoint 100 additional immigration 

judges, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2019 

Mrs. LESKO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize the Attorney General to appoint 100 additional 

immigration judges, 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. IMMIGRATION JUDGES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may ap5 point 100 additional immigration judges in addition to im6 migration judges currently serving as of the date of enact7 ment of this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3859 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

2 authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec3 essary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Jean G. PIERRE, petitioner, v. AIRSERV SECURITY, c/o American Airlines (JFK) Airport.

No. 16-9338.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.