alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Resources on Budget Process

**

----

-  *The Executive Budget Process: An Overview* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing of Legislative Action* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *The Executive Budget Process Timetable* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *Budget Reconciliation Legislation: Development and Consideration* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *Formulation and Content of the Budget Resolution* (CRS) (PDF) 
-  *Congressional Budget Resolutions:  Selected Statistics and Information Guide* (CRS) (PDF) 

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Legislative Keys 

Key to Versions of Printed LegislationKey to Legislative Citations

### Calendar of Business 

Current (GPO-govInfo)Past Calendars (GPO-govInfo)About the Calendar

### Related Links 

Types of Legislation
101st Congress, 2d Session House Document 101-197

VETO OF H.R. 2364

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS VETO OF H R. 2364, A BILL TO AMEND THE RAIL PASSENGER

SERVICE ACT TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

May 24, 1990.—Ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

:«>-<) 11 W A S H I N G T O N : 1 9 9 0
To the House of Representatives:

I am retu rn in g herew ith w ithout my approval H.R. 2364, the “A m trak R eauthorization and Im provem ent Act of 1990.” H.R. 2364 contains an unprecedented new regulatory review re­ quirem ent and represents a step backw ard for the entire rail industry.This new regulatory burden would interfere w ith the ability of the N ation's largest freight railroads to obtain needed capital or to change existing capital structure. The provision would institu te for the first tim e, and for the railroad industry alone, G overnm ent review and approval of acquisitions by entities th a t are not actual or potential com petitors, including a carrier's own m anagem ent or employees. This requirem ent is an unw arranted regulatory road­ block to financial restructuring of the railroad industry. T here is already adequate authority to protect the public interest in acquisition situations. Acquisitions of railroads by other rail­ roads are now closely scrutinized under existing law to prevent re­ ductions in competition. Dispositions of rail line segm ents are also subject to scrutiny when appropriate. Any financing of an acquisi­ tion, w hether or not by another carrier, th a t involves the issuance of securities or new obligations by th e target carrier is subject to review as well. This review focuses on the acquisition’s effect on the public interest and on the carrier's ability to provide service. C u rren t law is therefore more than sufficient to protect shippers and the general public. The rejuvenation of the rail industry since 1980 is due in large p a rt to the Congress’ decision to lift outdated and counterproduc­ tive G overnm ent oversight from the railroads. The result was the creation of a favorable environm ent for capital investm ent for the first tim e in decades. The new regulatory hurdle in H.R. 2364 would counter this progress by adding uncertainty to refinancing and by delaying the infusion of cash when it may be most needed. F u rth er, this delay and uncertainty would likely drive up the rail­ road industry's cost of capital, which could ultim ately jeopardize the industry's financial stability and endanger needed rail service. For no justifiable reason, the bill could inhibit the future flexibility of Class I freight railroads to use capital restructuring to adapt to ever-changing m arkets and economic circum stances. Existing law is adequate to ensure protection of the public in te r­ est w hen railroad acquisitions are being proposed. Because H.R. 2364 would impose a new, unprecedented, and unjustified regula­ tory review requirem ent for railroad acquisitions, I am compelled to veto the bill.

The White House, May 24, 1990.

(l)

George Bush.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2524

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand coverage of

bone mass measurements under part B of the Medicare Program to

all individuals at clinical risk for osteoporosis.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9, 2000

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand

coverage of bone mass measurements under part B of

the Medicare Program to all individuals at clinical risk

for osteoporosis.

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 ‘‘Medicare Osteoporosis

5 Measurement Act of 2000’’.
2

•S 2524 IS

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF BONE MASS MEASUREMENTS FOR

2 ALL INDIVIDUALS AT CLINICAL RISK FOR

3 OSTEOPOROSIS.

4 (a) COVERAGE.—Section 1861(rr)(2)(A) of the Social

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(rr)(2)(A)) is amended to

6 read as follows:

7 ‘‘(A) an individual, including an estrogen-defi8 cient woman, at clinical risk for osteoporosis;’’.

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

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to items and services

11 furnished on or after October 1, 2000.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-KSB of American TonerServ Corp., a company
duly formed under the laws of Delaware (the "Company"), for the year ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel J. Brinker, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



March 26, 2007                      /s/ Daniel J. Brinker
                                    Daniel J. Brinker
                                    Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American TonerServ Corp. and will be retained by American
TonerServ Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ROBERT E. RANDOLPH,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1386

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20

- 5809

, Judge William S. Greenberg, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge Coral Wong
Pietsch.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by
Federal Circuit Rul e 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules,

IT IS ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in Case: 23-1386 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2023R ANDOLPH V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

May 1, 2023
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 1, 2023 Case: 23-1386 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2023
DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10362

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:98-cr-14015-JEM-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RAFAEL ALBERTO CADENA-SOSA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 19, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-10362 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Michael B. Cohen, appointed counsel for Rafael Alberto Cadena-Sosa in this 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cadena-Sosa’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10362 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 2 of 2
No. 1,881.

#### WILSON, Receiver, Respondent, *v.*HERSHFIELD et al., Defendants; MART HERSHFIELD, Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clarice County; Henry C. Smith, Judge.*

Decided July 21, 1903.

*Messrs. Sanders & Sanders,*for. Appellant.

'Per Curiam.

This appeal is dismissed, and *remittitur*ordered to issue forthwith in accordance with the precipe of counsel for appellant of date of July 20, 1903, at 2:30 p. m.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheet at March  31,  1999 and the  related  Statement  of
Consolidated  Operations  for the  three  months  ended  March  31,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999      
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               141,000
<SECURITIES>                                         126,275
<RECEIVABLES>                                         34,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           85,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     413,550
<PP&E>                                             2,565,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,464,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,597,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                142,666
<BONDS>                                              303,955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             231,121
<OTHER-SE>                                           506,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,597,858
<SALES>                                              163,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     178,533
<CGS>                                                140,449 <F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        151,430 <F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       8,323 <F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     4,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       14,235 
<INCOME-TAX>                                          12,472
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    2,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           2,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.01

<FN>
<F1> Includes  Production  costs and  Depreciation,  depletion and  amortization
     from the Statement of Consolidated Operations.
<F2> Includes  Production  costs,  Depreciation,  depletion and amortization and
     Administrative  and general  expense  from the  Statement  of  Consolidated
     Operations.
<F3> Includes  Exploration  expense  and Other  expense  from the  Statement  of
     Consolidated Operations.


</FN>
        



</TABLE>
# Hugh Scott: A Featured Biography

**

----

On September 24, 1969, in a closed-door caucus, Senate Republicans narrowly elected Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania over Senator Howard Baker, Jr., of Tennessee to be the new Republican minority leader. Scott had served as the Republican whip for less than a year when the death of Illinois senator Everett Dirksen left the party's leadership position vacant. Elected to the Senate in 1958, Scott served three terms before retiring in 1977. He served as Republican leader for eight years. According to William F. Hildenbrand, Scott's long-time assistant in the Senate, the senator "was a consummate politician." In 1981 a room in the Capitol was designated as the “Hugh Scott Room,” and in 1989, when Senate leaders were establishing a special 15-member Study Group on the Commemoration of the Senate Bicentenary, Scott was selected to chair this panel.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
# States in the Senate | Hawaii Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of Beverly National Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), we, Donat A. Fournier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael O. Gilles, 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 the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Donat A. Fournier  
|    |  | Donat A. Fournier      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | November 9, 2007       
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Michael O. Gilles  
|    |  | Michael O. Gilles      
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    | 
|    |  | November 9, 2007       

The foregoing certificate is furnished solely for purposes of complying with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any of the Companys previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the Companys future filings, including this Report on Form 10-Q, in whole or in part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such filings.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 7, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00731

- CV

IN RE Sam LAJZEROWICZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The Relator's Motion for Extension of Time to File Relator's Motion for Rehearing En

Banc of Denial of Reconsideration (Rehearing) of Supplemented Petition for Writ of Mandamus

is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to March 16, 2018.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015

- CI

- 20292, styled Sam Lajzerowicz v. Estelita O’Campo Lajzerowicz

, pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh presiding.
# States in the Senate | New Mexico Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
Exhibit 10.9





FPIC Insurance Group,
Inc.





Executive Incentive


Compensation Plan





Summary of 2008 Implementation
Guide








Plan
Description


Under this plan, the Compensation
Committee of the holding company board will establish performance measures and
goal weightings for each year based on synergies and desired focus. The
performance measures will be both quantitative and qualitative in
nature.





Performance
Components


Corporate financial measures will be
based on corporate relevant metrics and operating subsidiary (OS) measures will
be based on OS relevant metrics. Certain senior executives of each OS, including
its CEO, will have a portion of their incentive compensation tied to corporate
performance given the high degree of synergy with corporate
objectives.





The following performance component
weights will apply to the Company’s executive officers for
2008:





Tier
            Corporate
            OS
            IndividualHolding Co. -
      CEO/CFO
            100%
            -
            -OS - CEO
            45%
            35%
            20%








Performance
Targets


Specific targets will be established on
an annual basis for each performance component and will be evaluated on a
sliding scale ranging from 50% of the bonus opportunity to 150% of the bonus
opportunity. Any measure falling below the 50% level will reduce the related
bonus opportunity to 0%.





Individual
Target Bonuses


Target bonuses for the following
executive officers will be as follows (as a percentage of 2008 base
salary):




Tier
            Target Bonus
              (as % of base
      salary)Holding Co. -
      CEO
            100%Holding Co. -
      CFO
            50%OS - CEO
            50%
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 7, 2011 

y0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141701 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141701 

 COA: 288622 

Oakland CC: 2007-217026-FC 

JONATHAN ALONZO PHLEGM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 8, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 04, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 04, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0094. OMOLAYO OGUNNOIKI v. PRINCEWILL ANEKE et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV00374
#### S. T. W. Minor, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Glenn, Wright *&*Carr, defendants in error.

When there is considerable conflict in the testimony, and the Judge below refuses a new trial, this Court will not disturb the judgment.

New trial. Evidence. Before Judge Wright. Eayette county. At Chambers. January 15th, 1872.

There having been no record forwarded in this case, it is impossible to give a full report of the same. It may be inferred from the bill of exceptions that Glenn, Wright & Carr sued out a factor’s lien against S. T. W. Minor for an indebtedness contracted by him in the purchase of a commercial fertilizer known as Zell’s guano. The entire contest seems to have been as to the quality of the fertilizer. An immense amount of evidence was introduced by the plaintiff to show that the guano was suitable for the purposes for which sold. The evidence to the contrary in behalf of defendants was very strong. The jury found for the plaintiff, and defendants moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled and defendants excepted and assigns said ruling as error.

R. S. Dorsey; Tidwell *&*Fears, for plaintiff in error.

J. S. Doyal; J. L. Blalock; Peeples & Howell, for defendants.

*222McCay, Judge.

It would be going far to interfere with this verdict. The evidence on both sides was the subject of consideration for the jury. True, it may preponderate, in our judgment, against the verdict. But we are not a Court of appeal from the verdicts of juries upon the facts. Is the verdict illegal — does it display manifest mistake or prejudice? We think not. The defendants’ testimony, though apparently very positive, is in fact only so in opinion, and not in statement of material facts. All these witnesses only say the guano did in fact do no good. They do not show the season was not unpropitious for guano — that it was not very dry. Indeed two of them say, in effect, one that the cotton did grow higher, and the other that it opened sooner. These are the two particulars in which manure shows itself. Ifj nothwithstanding this, there was not a good crop, the conclusion is very natural that it was for some other reason than the worthlessness of the fertilizer. In such a case as this, especially ought the verdict of the jury in favor of *the plaintiff*have special significance.

Judgment affirmed.