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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of 

government. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article 

3 I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Thirteenth 

4 Congress the Speaker of the House and the Majority 

5 Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 

6 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

7 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 1 RDS 

1 may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, 

2 respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District 

3 of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall 

4 warrant it. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 3, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Petitioners, v. REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-587.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Motion of respondents Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, et al. in No. 18-589 for leave to file a supplemental brief after oral argument granted.
# C_2017048EN.01000201.xml

| 15.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/2

---

Adoption of Commission Decision on the notification by the Republic of Finland of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions

(2017/C 48/02)

On 30 June 2016, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2016) 3942 on the notification by the Republic of Finland of a modified transitional national plan referred to in Article 32(6) of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (1).

1

This document is available on the following internet site: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/36205e98-8e7a-47d7-808d-931bc5baf6ee

---

(1)  OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 12-31-96 and
is qualified in it's entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                            132,563
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,996,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (300,000)
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,370,802
<PP&E>                                            524,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                    320,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,634,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,905,899
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            2,760
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,725,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,634,602
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                5,670,276
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,274,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  583,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,927,372
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   884,876
<INCOME-TAX>                                      339,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      545,076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 28,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1997
<CASH>                                          86,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,804
<INVENTORY>                                    137,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,917
<PP&E>                                         478,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                 240,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 473,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,002
<BONDS>                                        255,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   473,869
<SALES>                                        268,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               268,789
<CGS>                                          225,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/22/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      805,763
COMMITMENTS
 109,861   14,897  246,660  429,648  518,063  786,169  779,620   19,593   26,143

CHANGES FROM 10/15/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -21,525)
  22,088     -995  -21,044  -24,546   -5,019  -23,503  -27,058    1,978    5,533

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.6      1.8     30.6     53.3     64.3     97.6     96.8      2.4      3.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      145)
      42       28       60       70       61      138      125
```

----

Updated November 1, 2013
Bradley Deon HOOVER, Petitioner, v. Rosemary NDOH, Warden.

No. 19-8003.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 124 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 5771. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 5771, 

3 the Clerk of the House shall amend subsection (a) of sec4 tion 1 of Division B (relating to Achieving a Better Life 

5 Experience Act of 2014) to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as 

7 the ‘Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life ExperiVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:16 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC124.RDS HC124

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 124 RDS 

1 ence Act of 2014’ or the ‘Stephen Beck, Jr., ABLE Act 

2 of 2014’.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1575

JENNIFER MARITZA IRAHETA FRANCO,

 Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: March 4, 2020

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, 

Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, S. Nicole Nardone, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Maritza Iraheta Franco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed 

Franco’s claims, the administrative record, and the final administrative order of removal,

and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2018), and that substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the agency. 

See In re Franco (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2019). We deny the Attorney General’s motion for 

summary disposition as moot and 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.

PETITION DENIED
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 568 

Designating the week beginning September 16, 2012, as ‘‘National HispanicServing Institutions Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. REID, Mr. BEGICH, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mr. HELLER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BENNET, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. COONS, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning September 16, 2012, as 

‘‘National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week’’. 

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions play an important role 

in educating many underprivileged students and helping 

those students attain their full potential through higher 

education; 

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions are degree-granting institutions that have a full-time equivalent undergraduate 

enrollment of at least 25 percent Hispanic students; 

Whereas there are more than 300 Hispanic-serving institutions in operation in the United States; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 568 ATS 

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions serve more than half 

(54 percent) of all Hispanic students, enrolling more 

than 1,300,000 students in 2010; 

Whereas Hispanic-serving institutions are actively involved in 

stabilizing and improving the communities in which the 

Hispanic-serving institutions are located; 

Whereas celebrating the vast contributions of Hispanic-serving institutions to the United States strengthens the culture of the United States; and 

Whereas the achievements and goals of Hispanic-serving institutions are deserving of national recognition: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the achievements and goals of 

3 Hispanic-serving institutions across the United 

4 States; 

5 (2) designates the week beginning September 

6 16, 2012, as ‘‘National Hispanic-Serving Institu7 tions Week’’; and 

8 (3) calls on the people of the United States and 

9 interested groups to observe the week with appro10 priate ceremonies, activities, and programs to dem11 onstrate support for Hispanic-serving institutions. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Frizzell Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8837.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                           2,260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (204)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,239
<PP&E>                                           3,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,137)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,103
<SALES>                                          6,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,688
<CGS>                                            3,506
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
October 18 , 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF GALVESTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00192

- CV V.

GALVESTON MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS,

AND ROBERT SANDERSON , Appellees

____________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, GALVESTON
MUNICIPAL POLICE ASS OCIATION, JIMMY DE L OS SANTOS, AND ROBER T
SANDERSON , signed February 3, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find err or in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment that the claims against appellant, CITY OF GALVESTON, be DISMISSED

.
We order appellees, GALVESTON MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, JIMMY DE LOS SANTOS, AND R OBERT SANDERSON , jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for
observance.
Martin Arreola ZAVALA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9677

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Shaun Allen DICK, Petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 18-9130.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , 590 U.S. ---- (2020). Justice Alito, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand: In this and in all other case in which the Court grants, vacates, and remands in light of *Ramos* v. *Louisiana* , I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JUSTIN TATUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DBOSS FUNDING LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 6:23-cv-565-JDK-KNM

§ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Docket No. 9. This 

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings 

of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Docket No. 3. 

On November 13, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

(Docket No. 11), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 

(Docket No. 9) be granted in part and denied in part. The Magistrate Judge

recommended granting default judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims under 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(c)(5) and Texas Business and Commercial Code § 302.101(a) but denying

Plaintiff’s request for $84,500 in damages. Docket No. 11 at 9–10. Instead, 

the Magistrate Judge recommended awarding Plaintiff $18,500 in damages under

47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and $65,000 under the Texas Business and Commercial Code 

§ 302.302(a), for a total of $83,500 in statutory damages. Id. at 11. No written

objections have been received. 

Case 6:23-cv-00565-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

56
2

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report 

and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the 

Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under 

the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) 

(en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending 

the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate 

Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal 

conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States 

v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a

Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, 

abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, the 

Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the findings of this Court and 

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 

(Docket No. 11). 

So ordered and signed on this 

Dec 12, 2024

Case 6:23-cv-00565-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

57
IN RE Roger A. LIBBY, Petitioner

No. 19-6888

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Esther KIOBEL, By and Through Her Attorney-In-Fact, Channa SAMKALDEN, petitioner, v. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP.

No. 18-706.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Adam Lee HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. Eileen RAMEY, Warden.

No. 19-7423.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
Michael-Francis PALMA, petitioner, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD.

No. 18-8947.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.