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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1919 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1919

  To require the Commissioner of Social Security to provide prisoner 
information obtained from the States to Federal and federally assisted 
 benefit programs as a means of preventing the erroneous provision of 
                         benefits to prisoners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1999

Mr. Herger (for himself, Mr. Clement, Mr. Crane, Mr. Ramstad, Ms. Dunn, 
 Mr. Watkins, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Weller, and Mr. Foley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Commissioner of Social Security to provide prisoner 
information obtained from the States to Federal and federally assisted 
 benefit programs as a means of preventing the erroneous provision of 
                         benefits to prisoners.

    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 ``Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, 
Part III''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE STATE PRISONER INFORMATION TO FEDERAL 
              AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED BENEFIT PROGRAMS.

    Section 1611(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1382(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``is authorized to'' and 
inserting ``shall''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

HERSHEL R. OBEY §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv186

T. WOLFE, ET AL. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Hershal R. Obey, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The Court referred this

matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has

submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the case

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Proper notice was given to plaintiff at his

last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2). No objections were filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 4] is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. A final

judgment shall be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 4th day of March, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00186-MJT-ZJH Document 5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 21
In Re David HOSKINS, et al., petitioners.

No. 18-6551.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
(111 So. 463)

No. 27750.

#### ODEN, Tax Collector, v. ZACHERY.

(Jan. 3, 1927.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31,1927.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

1. Courts <&wkey;224(7) — Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of appeal from judgment requiring payment of peddler’s tax'involving neither constitutionality of statute nor legality of tax, jurisdictional amount being absent (Const. 1921, artj 7, §. 10; Act No. 205 of 1924, § 18).

Under Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of appeal from judgment condemning hawker and peddler to pay for state license under Act No. 205 of 1924, § 18, where constitutionality of statute is not involved nor legality of tax and amount in dispute does not exceed $2,000 exclusive of interest.

2. Courts &wkey;>487(l) — Appeal erroneously brought to Supreme Court will be transfer- . red to *Court of*Appeal.

Where Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of appeal to it, but Court of Appeal has, appeal | will" not be dismissed but will be transferred to Court of Appeal.

Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Allen; Jerry Cline; Judge.

Proceeding by R. B. Oden, Tax Collector, against A. E. Zachefy. From judgment condemning defendant, to pay for a peddler’s license for 1925, he appeals.

Transferred.

Peterman, Dear & .Peterman, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Percy C. Smith, of Oberlin, for appellee.

ROGERS, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment condemning him as- a hawker and peddler traveling in a motor vehicle to pay $200, with interest and attorney’s fees, for a state license for the year 1925, under section 18, Act 205 of 1924.

[1] The only question presented in the case is whether appellant was engaged in the business of hawker or peddler during the year for which the license is demanded. The constitutionality of the statute is not involved, nor is the legality of the license tax in contest, so far as it has been levied on th’e specified business or calling of peddler and hawker. It is clear, also, that the amount in dispute does not exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest. In these circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10; Downs. Tax Collector, v. Dunn (No. 27770 of our docket decided November 29, 1926) ante, p. 747, 111 So. 82.

[2] The appeal, however, should not be dismissed, but should be transferred to the Court of Appeal, which is vested with appellate jurisdiction in such cases.

It is therefore ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, to be there disposed of according to law. *'*
No. 6:23-cr-00065-4

United States of America

v.

Silmaryt Mirjuly Adames De Rivas

ORDER

This criminal action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for administration of a guilty plea under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The magistrate judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued 

findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea. Doc. 170. The 

magistrate judge recommended that the court accept defendant’s 

guilty plea and adjudge defendant guilty on count one of the indictment. Id. at 2. Defendant waived his right to object to the magistrate 

judge’s findings. Id.

The court hereby accepts the findings of fact and recommendation on guilty plea of the magistrate judge. The court also accepts 

defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the plea agreement until 

after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with defendant’s guilty plea, the court finds defendant Silmaryt Mirjuly Adames De Rivas (4) guilty of count one

of the indictment, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business.

So ordered by the court on July 17, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cr-00065-JCB-JDL Document 178 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 790
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

NICHOLAS MAIDA §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-97

BRYAN DOBBS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Nicholas Maida, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex located

in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to submit either the full filing fee, $402.00, or an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a statement certified by an authorized prison official

showing the average balance in and deposits into Plaintiff’s inmate trust account for the preceding

six months. Plaintiff’s compliance was due on or before the expiration of twenty (20) days from the

date of the order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). 

As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to either pay the filing fee or submit an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis as ordered. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this

case. Therefore, this action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b).

Case 1:23-cv-00097-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72.

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 10th day of April, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00097-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9
Keith L. NASH, petitioner, v. Richard J. BISHOP, et al.

No. 18-5816.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

|Parent                               |                         |                                      
|------------------------------------ | ----------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                                     |                         |                                      
|Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc.      |                         |                                      
|                                     |                         |                                      
|Subsidiaries (a)                     | Percentage of Ownership | Jurisdiction or State ofIncorporation
|                                     |                         |                                      
|Southern Missouri Bank and Trust Co. | 100%                    | Missouri                             
|SMS Financial Services, Inc.(b)      | 100%                    | Missouri                             

___________________________

|(a) | The operation of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries are included in the Company's Financial Statements
contained in Item 7 hereof.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(b) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Missouri Bank and Trust Co.
Zachary N. TROST, et ux., petitioners, v. Sherry TROST.

No. 18-271.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT A. WHETTS, 

JR.; KIMBERLY L. WILLIAMS, RIKON 

WILLIAMS, KHALIF WILLIAMS, LOUISE B. 

WILLIAMS, AND CYNTHIA WHITFIELD,

Petitioners

v.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., 

BRENNTAG NORTHEAST, INC., BARNES 

& THORNBURG, LLP; MORGAN, LEWIS & 

BOCKIUS, LLP; AND BARLEY SNYDER, 

LLP.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 656 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00252

- CV

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

v. GULF ENERGY EXPLORATION CORPORATION

On Appeal from the 267th District Court of Calhoun County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 09

- 08

- 0809

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS , having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision cer tified below for observance.

May 29 , 2014
EX-4.3




 Exhibit 4.3 

RADIAN GROUP INC. 
 1500 Market
Street 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 

March 19, 2019 
 COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED 

480 Washington Boulevard 
 Jersey City, NJ 07310 

Attention: Courtney Lamb 
 Re: Notice of Occurrence of Expiration
Date under the Tax Benefit Preservation Agreement 
 Dear Ms. Lamb: 

Please refer to the Amended and Restated Tax Benefit Preservation Agreement, dated as of February 12, 2010, between Radian Group Inc. (the
“Company”) and The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Rights Agent”), as amended as of May 3, 2010 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined are given the meanings
attributed to them in the Agreement. 
 Under Section 7(a) of the Agreement, (i) the Expiration Date of the Rights is to occur at such time as the
Board determines that a limitation on the use of the Tax Benefits under Section 382 would no longer be material to the Company, and (ii) the Company is obligated to promptly notify the Rights Agent in writing upon the occurrence of the
Expiration Date. 
 On March 19, 2019, the Board determined by resolution that a limitation on the use of the Tax Benefits under Section 382 is no
longer material to the Company. This letter serves as notice as required under Section 7(a) of the Agreement that the Expiration Date of the Rights has occurred. The Company hereby requests your acknowledgment and acceptance of this notice.

 Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. 

 

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	RADIAN GROUP INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Edward J. Hoffman

	Name:	 	Edward J. Hoffman
	Title:	 	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


  

	cc:	 COMPUTERSHARE LIMITED 



480 Washington Boulevard 
 Jersey
City, NJ 07310 
 Attention: Legal Department
Fernando YATES, petitioner, v. WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 18-5026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 22, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Daniel Arthur CARTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7883.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Mark HANNA, petitioner, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.

No. 18-7136.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
K. Wendell LEWIS, et al., petitioners, v. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION.

No. 18-1279.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

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

Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 4, 2024

v No. 338360 Wayne Circuit Court

TYLER MAURICE TATE

, LC No. 16

- 010656

- 01

- FJ

Defendant

- Appellant.

ON REMAND

Before: M. J. K ELLY

, P .J., and M ARKEY and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, J. ( concurring )

.

I concur with the majority as to the outcome and in most of its analysis. As I stated in dissent from our previous opinion, I do not agree that the trial court properly considered defendant’s youth when imposing sentence. However, that issue was resolved by the Supreme Court’s decision to remand solely on the issue of proportionality.

Review for proportionality in this case is no easy task. Defendant was not the shooter, and, at age 16, was obviously influenced by the gang culture in which he had becom e involved. However, the evidence is clear that he knowingly and willingly participated in a murder characterized by lying in wait, which unequivocally demonstrates premeditation.

Defendant refers us to other juvenile cases in which 40

- year minimums we re imposed, and points out that, in those cases, the defendant directly committed the murderous assaults. However, under the law that governs our review and the facts of the case, I cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion or imposed a dispro portionate sentence.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Case 4:23-cv-00377-ALM Document 12 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 121
Frank J. BALLESTEROS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6113.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Hayden BEAULIEU, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 18-6027.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2075 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2075

     To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in 
                         photography products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1999

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in 
                         photography products.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``     9902.61.04     Phosphonic acid,   Free        No change          No change          On or before 12/
                       [nitrilotris(met                                                     31/2001           ''
                       hylene)] tris-,                                                                         .
                       pentasodium salt
                       (CAS No. 2235-43-
                       0) (provided for
                       in subheading
                       2931.00.9030)...

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

```

----

Updated March 2, 2012
Exhibit 10.4.1

 

EXECUTION 

 

AMENDMENT

 

This Amendment is an amendment to the Administration and Accounting Services Agreement between Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) and The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) dated September 17, 2010 (the “Agreement”).

 

The effective date of this Amendment is January 16, 2019.

 

WHEREAS, this Fund and BNY Mellon wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, and each acknowledging receipt of sufficient consideration with respect to the terms of this Amendment, the Fund and BNY Mellon hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                  A new Section 12(xv) is added to Section 12 of the Agreement as follows and existing Sections 12(xv) and (xvi) are renumbered accordingly:

 

“Calculate an estimate of the changes in the Fund’s Federal and state tax accruals from the prior calculation of the Fund’s net asset value and provide such estimate to the Adviser, the Adviser will either confirm that estimate to the Administrator and the Administrator will then use such amounts in the calculation of the Fund’s net asset value or the Adviser will provide different Federal and/or state tax accruals to the Administrator which the Administrator will then use in the calculation of the Fund’s net asset value.”

 

2.                                  Section 13(iv) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:

 

“Prepare me Fund’s Schedule of Investments and the Fund’s financial statements using the data contained in the accounting platform, which the Fund will then use in connection with the Fund’s preparation of its annual and semi-annual shareholder reports;”

 

3.                                  Section 13(v) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:

 

“Provide normal and customary quantitative information contained in the accounting platform, which the Fund will then use in connection with the Fund’s preparation of its Notes to Financial Statements;”

 

4.                                  Section 13(vi) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:

 

“Provide normal and customary quantitative information contained in the accounting platform, which the Fund will then use in connection with the Fund’s preparation of its 10K and 10Q;”

 











 

5.                                  Sections 13 (vii), (ix) and (x) of the Agreement are deleted and the remaining sub-sections are renumbered accordingly.

 

Agreed:

 

 

	
Firsthand Technology
    	
The Bank of New York
    
	
Value Fund, Inc.
    	
York Mellon
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Kevin Landis
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Dorothy R Mckown
    
	
Name:
    	
Kevin Landis
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Dorothy R Mckown
    
	
Title:
    	
President
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Director
<PAGE>




                            EXHIBIT 21.1
                      SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


Family Safety Products, Inc., a Georgia corporation
Boss Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Boss Manufacturing Company, a Delaware corporation
Boss Balloon Company, an Illinois corporation
Boss Manufacturing Marketing, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Boss Manufacturing Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Boss Manufacturing Real Estate II, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Boss de Mexico, S.A., a foreign corporation
Boss Canada, Inc., a foreign corporation

Promotional Marketing, Inc., a Georgia corporation