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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1233 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                    September 10, 2014.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1233) entitled ``An Act to amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States 
Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish 
procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based 
privilege against disclosure of Presidential records, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)On page 5, line 7, strike [of] and insert on.

(2)On page 10 from line 8 through page 11 line 1, strike all and 
insert:
    (a) In General.--The President, the Vice President, or a covered 
employee may not create or send a Presidential or Vice Presidential 
record using a non-official electronic message account unless the 
President, Vice President, or covered employee--
            (1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the 
        President, Vice President, or covered employee in the original 
        creation or transmission of the Presidential record or Vice 
        Presidential record; or
            (2) forwards a complete copy of the Presidential or Vice 
        Presidential record to an official electronic messaging account 
        of the President, Vice President, or covered employee not later 
        than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the 
        Presidential or Vice Presidential record.
    (b) Adverse Actions.--The intentional violation of subsection (a) 
by a covered employee (including any rules, regulations, or other 
implementing guidelines), as determined by the appropriate supervisor, 
shall be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with subchapter 
I, II, or V of chapter 75 of title 5, as the case may be.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered employee.--The term ``covered employee'' 
        means--
                    (A) the immediate staff of the President;
                    (B) the immediate staff of the Vice President;
                    (C) a unit or individual of the Executive Office of 
                the President whose function is to advise and assist 
                the President; and
                    (D) a unit or individual of the Office of the Vice 
                President whose function is to advise and assist the 
                Vice President.

(3)On page 11, line 2, strike [1] and insert 2.

(4)On page 11, line 6, strike [2] and insert 3.

(5)On page 11, line 9 through line 11, strike everything up to the 
first period.

(6)On page 31, line 8, strike [within five days] and insert not later 
than 20 days.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 1233

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
Keith ALEXANDER, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-8013.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
Carlos CUESTA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Mike CARPENTER, Warden.

No. 19-5968

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Money Market Portfolio:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Money Market Portfolio (the "Fund") of Travelers Variable
Products Funds for the year ended December 31, 1998, we
considered its internal control, including control activities
for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form
N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Those
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error
or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the
financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected
within a timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no
matters involving the internal control and its operation,
including controls for safeguarding securities that we consider
to be material weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Trustees of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.





February 8, 1999
IN RE Vinodh RAGHUBIR, Petitioner.

No. 19-5626

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
# C_2018007EN.01000101.xml

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8664 — WME IMG/Perform/PIMGSA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 7/01)

On 15 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8664. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8664. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Lena LASHER, Petitioner, v. Naomi Reice BUCHWALD, Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

No. 18-9317

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 37 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting 

the number of times Senators and Representatives may be elected. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mr. RIBBLE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States limiting the number of times Senators and Representatives may be elected. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 37 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person shall be elected as a Rep3 resentative more than three times. An election to any part 

4 of a term for which some other person was elected shall 

5 not count in determining the number of times a person 

6 is elected unless the person serves more than one year as 

7 a Representative pursuant to that election. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person shall be elected or appointed 

9 as a Senator more than twice. An election or appointment 

10 to any part of a term for which some other person was 

11 elected shall not count in determining the number of times 

12 a person is elected or appointed unless the person serves 

13 more than three years as a Senator pursuant to that elec14 tion or appointment. 

15 ‘‘SECTION 3. Only elections or appointments which 

16 occur after the date of ratification of this article shall 

17 count in determining the number of times a person is 

18 elected or appointed. 

19 ‘‘SECTION 4. Any reelection or reappointment of a 

20 Senator to the office of Senator shall not count in deter21 mining the number of times a person is elected or ap22 pointed if the person was a Senator on the date of ratifica23 tion of this article and has been elected as a Senator every 

24 term since the date of ratification of this article. Any re25 election of a Representative to the office of Representative 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HJ 37 IH 

1 shall not count in determining the number of times a per2 son is elected or appointed if the person was a Representa3 tive on the date of ratification of this article and has been 

4 elected as a Representative every term since the date of 

5 ratification of this article.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2018329EN.01000201.xml

| 18.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Special Report No 17/2018

‘Commission's and Member States’ actions in the last years of the 2007-2013 programmes tackled low absorption but had insufficient focus on results'

(2018/C 329/02)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 17/2018 ‘Commission's and Member States’ actions in the last years of the 2007-2013 programmes tackled low absorption but had insufficient focus on results' has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
----

Own-initiative opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Low-cost airlines and territorial development’

(2004/C 318/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau on 19 March 2004, and the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to draw up an opinion on the role played by low-cost airlines in territorial development, and to instruct the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to undertake the preparatory work;

Having regard to the opinion (CdR 388/2002 fin) of 9 April 2003 on Territorial Cohesion (rapporteur: Mr Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, President of the Autonomous Community of Murcia (ES/EPP));

Having regard to its opinion of 15 May 2002 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (COM(2002) 54 final — 2002/0038 COD) (CdR 103/2002 fin) (1);

Having regard to its outlook opinion on The capacity of regional airports (CdR 393/2002) (2) adopted on 2 July 2003 (rapporteur: Mr Bob Verburg, Vice-Governor of the Province of Noord-Holland, NL, EPP);

Having regard to the Guidelines for the Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA agreement to State aids in the aviation sector COM(1994) 350 final;

Having regard to the rulings of the Court of Justice C-159/91 and C-160/91 of 17 February 1993 on ‘Christian Poucet v Assurances Générales de France and Caisse Mutuelle Régionale du Languedoc-Roussillon’ and C-82/01 of 24 October 2002 on ‘Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities’;

Having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 63/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 5 May 2004 by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Keymer, Leader of Tandridge District Council (UK/EPP));

Whereas:

adopted the following opinion at its 55th Plenary Session on 16 and 17 June 2004 (meeting of 17 June).

Views of the Committee of the Regions

Introduction

The Committee of the Regions

Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

Territorial cohesion and development

Conclusion

Economic competitiveness

Conclusion

State aid

Conclusion

Requirements of guidelines on State aid

Brussels, 17 June 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 278 of 14.11.2002, p. 15.

(2)OJ C 256 of 24.10.2003, p. 47.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132968 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132968 

 COA: 270910 

Cass CC: 02-010245-FC 

 02-010246-FC 

BRUCE ALLEN HELBLING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Michael A. SALAZAR, Petitioner v. HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP, et al.

No. 19-5016

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent

                             

To the Shareholders and Directors of the
Smith Barney Intermediate Municipal Fund, Inc.:
We consent to the use of our report dated February 2,
1996 incorporated herein by reference and to the
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial
Highlights" in the Prospectus.




                                        KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP
New York, New York
March 21, 1996
Joy SPURR, Petitioner v. Melissa L. POPE, Chief Judge, Tribal Court of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi, et al.

No. 19-598

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Steven WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.;

No. 19-5190

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4465

_____________________________ A NDREW D AVID H AWTHORNE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. April 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and M AKAR and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice Kaye Brower, Office of Regional Conflict, Gainesville, and Melissa Joy Ford
, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahasse e, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Ruthen James WEEMS III, Petitioner, v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE MEDICAL CENTER - HILLCREST

No. 19-6040

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
# C_2022320EN.01002401.xml

| 24.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/24

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 11 January 2021 concerning a draft decision in case COMP/AT.40413 Focus Home

Rapporteur: Latvia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 320/11)

1.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) overall agrees with the draft decision and agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, including its reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

3.

The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
Dawn Marie DELEBREAU, Petitioner v. Cristina DANFORTH, et al.

No. 18-1461

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

Calendar No. 155 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1171 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JULY 31, 2013 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans 

service organizations access to Federal surplus personal 

property. 

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 ‘‘Formerly Owned Re5 sources for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act 

6 of 2013’’ or the ‘‘FOR VETS Act of 2013’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1171 RS

1 SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SUR2 PLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

3 Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

6 the end; 

7 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

8 (A) in clause (viii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

9 end; and 

10 (B) by striking clause (x); and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(C) for purposes of providing services to 

13 veterans (as defined in section 101 of title 38), 

14 to an organization whose— 

15 ‘‘(i) membership comprises substan16 tially veterans; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) representatives are recognized by 

18 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 

19 section 5902 of title 38.’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 155 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1171 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve 

surplus personal property. veterans service organizations access to Federal 

JULY 31, 2013 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2020 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and ServicingAgreement, dated as of February 28, 2018 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables2018-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2020. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**
# C_2018414EN.01000102.xml

| 15.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9107 — The Carlyle Group/NEP Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 414/02)

On 17 October 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9107. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9107. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---