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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5170 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to prohibit the Commission of Fine 

Arts from exercising authority over non-Federal property in the District 

of Columbia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 8, 2023 

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

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to prohibit the Commission of Fine Arts from exercising authority over nonFederal property in the District of Columbia, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commission of Fine 

5 Arts District of Columbia Home Rule Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5170 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS FROM 

2 EXERCISING AUTHORITY OVER NON-FED3 ERAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF CO4 LUMBIA. 

5 (a) LIMITING AUTHORITY OVER LOCATION OF STAT6 UES, FOUNTAINS, AND MONUMENTS.—Section 9102(a)(1) 

7 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘District of Columbia’’ and inserting ‘‘District of Colum9 bia which are owned by the Federal Government’’. 

10 (b) CLARIFICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON AUTHOR11 ITY.—Section 9102(c) of such title is amended to read as 

12 follows: 

13 ‘‘(c) NONAPPLICATION.—The authority of the Com14 mission under this section does not apply to any of the 

15 following: 

16 ‘‘(1) The United States Capitol. 

17 ‘‘(2) Any building of the Library of Congress. 

18 ‘‘(3) Any building, property, or project which is 

19 owned by the District of Columbia. 

20 ‘‘(4) Any private building, property, or 

21 project.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5263

David C. Poole Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                       430
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,930
<PP&E>                                           1,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,916
<BONDS>                                            306
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,027
<SALES>                                         26,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,622
<CGS>                                           12,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   342
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (14)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 26
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (217)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Roger BRUZAITUS, Defendant/Appellant. Roger BRUZAITUS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61980, 64047.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 7, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 28, 1994.

John A, Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of §§ 195.202 and 571.030.1(4), RSMo Cum Supp.1993. Also, it convicted him of one count of resisting arrest, in violation of § 575.150, RSMo 1986.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Caraballo, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), rendered April 18, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon to concurrent indeterminate sentences of 3 to 6 years and one year, respectively, and consecutive terms of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment for violating the conditions of his probation on an earlier case, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for separate trials on the robbery and weapon possession counts.

On the evening of March 23, 1987, defendant and his codefendant, Carlos Caraballo, robbed complainant at the corner of 105th Street and Third Avenue in Manhattan. Two police officers drove up to that corner and saw the complainant across the street waving his hands and yelling that he was robbed. Although the complainant did not state that he was robbed at knifepoint, one of the police officers testified that he saw a shiny object in defendant’s hand. Moreover, defendant and Carlos ran away when they saw the police officers. The police officers gave chase and apprehended the two men. Thirty dollars and a switchblade knife were recovered from defendant’s pants pocket.

On defendant’s motion, the court severed the two counts of the indictment. After the trial, the jury became deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial. Prior to the second trial, which resulted in the convictions herein appealed from, the court granted the prosecutor’s motion to reconsolidate the separate counts of the indictment. After the evidence was presented, the court denied counsel’s renewed motion to sever the two counts. Defendant contends that the court’s refusal to *215resever the two counts denied him a fair trial. We agree. The two counts of the indictment were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20 (2) (b). The evidence that defendant possessed a knife would not have been admissible as evidence-in-chief at his trial for an unarmed robbery. Nor was the fact that he committed an unarmed robbery relevant to the issue of whether he was guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Furthermore, the evidence that defendant possessed a knife presented a substantial danger that the jury would conclude that defendant was predisposed to commit the robbery *(see, People v Gadsden,*139 AD2d 925, 926).

In view of the foregoing, we do not address defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRIAN ROBERT GILL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30210

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00418-JCC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2014** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: ALARCÓN, KLEINFELD, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Brian Gill appeals the district court’s order continuing the terms of his

supervised release without modification. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

FILED

JUL 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gill challenges a condition of his supervised release that requires him to

abide by all rules and lifestyle restrictions imposed by his therapist as part of his

sexual-deviancy treatment program. He argues, as he did below, that this condition

impermissibly delegates the district court’s judicial authority to Gill’s therapist. 

Gill, however, raised this challenge for the first time in a memorandum

asking the district court to modify the conditions of his supervised release.

Congress has “limited the manner in which a defendant may challenge the legality

of a supervised release condition to: (1) direct appeal, (2) § 2255 habeas corpus

relief, and (3) . . . [a] Rule 35(c) motion.” United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043,

1044 (9th Cir. 2002). 

A district court may not modify the conditions of a defendant’s supervised

release based on the defendant’s claim that a certain condition is illegal. Id.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in ordering Gill’s supervised release to

continue without modification. 

AFFIRMED.

2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4825

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

(Global Industries, Ltd.)

|NAME                                           | INCORPORATION       
|---------------------------------------------- | --------------------
|Global Divers and Contractors, L.L.C.          | Louisiana           
|Global Pipelines PLUS, L.L.C.                  | Louisiana           
|Pipelines,  L.L.C.                             | Louisiana           
|Global Movible Offshore, L.L.C.                | Louisiana           
|Pelican Transportation, L.L.C.                 | Louisiana           
|The Red Adair Co., L.L.C.                      | Louisiana           
|Global Industries Offshore, L.L.C.             | Louisiana           
|Global Offshore International, LTD             | Cayman Islands      
|Global International Vessels, Ltd.             | Cayman Islands      
|Norman Offshore Pipelines, L.L.C.              | Louisiana           
|Global Pipelines Plus (Nigeria), Ltd.          | Nigeria             
|Global Offshore, Pty. Ltd.                     | Australia           
|Global Industries Asia Pacific Pte, Ltd.       | Singapore           
|Global Industries (B)Sdn. Bhd.                 | Brunei              
|PT Global Industries Asia Pacific              | Indonesia           
|Global Asia Pacific Industries, Sdn. Bhd.      | Malaysia            
|Subtec Asia, Limited                           | Isle of Man         
|Subtec Marine Services Limited                 | Cyprus              
|Subtec Offshore Support, Ltd.                  | Cyprus              
|Subtec Middle East Limited                     | Delaware            
|Subtec National Company, L.L.C.                | United Arab Emirates
|GIL Holdings, L.L.C.                           | Louisiana           
|Global Production Services, L.L.C.             | Louisiana           
|Global Industries Mexico Holdings, S.          |                     
|de R.L. de C.V.                                | Mexico              
|Global Vessels Mexico, S. de R.L.de C.V.       | Mexico              
|Global Industries Offshore Services, S.        |                     
|de R.L. de C.V.                                | Mexico              
|Global Industries Services, S. de R.L. de
C.V. | Mexico              
|Global Offshore Mexico,S. de R.L. de C.V.      | Mexico              
|Global Offshore (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.           | Malaysia            
|Global Industries Offshore(Thailand), Ltd.     | Thailand            
|Global Offshore International, L.L.C.          | Louisiana           
|Sunset Contracting Services, Inc.              | Texas               
|Global Industries International, L.P.          | Cayman Islands      
|Global Industries Offshore Spain, S.L.         | Spain               
|Global Industries Offshore Netherlands, BV     | The Netherlands     
|Global Industries Offshore Labuan Ltd.         | Labuan              
|Global Vesssels Mauritius, Ltd.                | Mauritius           
|Global Construction Mauritius Services, Ltd.   | Mauritius           
|GIL Mauritius Holdings, Ltd.                   | Mauritius
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, William J. Dore' certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (f) and15d-15 (f)) for the registrant and have:

a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

b)      Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;

c)      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedurespresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d)   Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.

March 16, 2006

/s/WILLIAM J. DORE'                       William J. Dore'                   Chief Executive Officer
#### R. Wayne JOHNSON, Appellant, v. E. FRANCO, Appellee.

No. 01-94-00654-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Feb. 16, 1995.

*303R. Wayne Johnson, pro se.

Before COHEN, MIRABAL and TAFT, JJ.

OPINION

COHEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a frivolous lawsuit. We affirm.

Johnson is a prison inmate. Franco is the grievance coordinator for Johnson’s unit. Johnson alleges that he was disciplined pursuant to a general prison policy against inmates checking the amount of money available through the inmate trust fund. He filed a grievance challenging the policy and alleges that Franco failed to post the grievance as required under TDCJ rules, citing page 51 of the Inmate Orientation Handbook; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1989); and Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.008 (Vernon Supp.1995). The handbook is not part of the appellate record. The cited statutes do not require posting of grievances, nor do they provide a cause of action for damages.

Johnson alleges that Franco acted in bad faith and in retaliation for Johnson’s filing of grievances. His sole cause of action is labeled “BREACH OF CONTRACT.” Johnson contends that the *Ruiz*settlement forms a contract between the state and its inmates. *See Ruiz v. Estelle,*666 F.2d 854, 862-73 (5th Cir.1982).

The trial court determined

> that the purported cause of action is frivolous and that the same should be dismissed as provided in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code of Texas, Chapter 13, Section 13.001(a)(2), to wit: the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact; and the action’s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight[ ]

and dismissed Johnson’s suit with prejudice.

In his sole point of error, Johnson alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit as frivolous.

“A pro se *informa pauperis*suit may be dismissed either before or after service of process if, under section 13.001(a), the tidal court finds that 1) the allegation of poverty is false, or 2) the action is frivolous or malicious.” *Hector v. Thaler,*862 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). A trial court has “broad discretion” to dismiss a lawsuit under section 13.001. *Id.*However, where, as here, there has been no fact hearing before dismissal of the suit, the trial court may not determine that the suit has no basis in fact. *Id.*Therefore, the reviewing court must determine whether the trial court properly dismissed the suit as having “no arguable basis in law....” *Id.*

The suit has no basis in law. There is no contract between appellant and Franco. Neither the inmate handbook nor the cited statutes constitute one.

Moreover, the dismissal order states that the “Master in Chancery” reviewed the pleadings for the trial court and made a recommendation that the court reviewed. That recommendation is not in the record. Consequently, nothing is presented for review.

The sole point of error is overruled.
<PAGE>   1

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                            GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.
                       1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


WHEREAS, the requirements of Rule 16b-3 regarding stockholder approval of
benefit plans and amendments thereto have recently been amended; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Global Industries, Ltd. 1995 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") to permit more flexibility in amending the
Plan as permitted by the new Rule 16b-3.

NOW THEREFORE the Global Industries, Ltd. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows (terms not otherwise defined have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Plan), effective as of February 12, 1997:

1.       Paragraph 15 of the Plan shall be amended by replacing such paragraph
with a new paragraph 15 which shall read in its entirety as follows:

         15.     AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION OF THE PLAN.  The Board in its
         discretion may terminate the Plan at any time with respect to any
         shares for which options have not theretofore been granted.  The Board
         shall have the right to alter or amend the Plan or any part thereof
         from time to time; provided that no change in any option theretofore
         granted may be made which would impair the rights of the optionee
         without the consent of the optionee, and provided, further, that the
         Board may not, without approval of the stockholders, amend the Plan to
         increase the maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued
         under the Plan (other than as a result of the anti-dilution provisions
         of the Plan) or cause options under the plan to fail to meet the
         requirements of employee stock purchase plan options as defined in
         Section 423 of the Code.

2.       The Plan as amended and modified by this First Amendment shall remain
in full force and effect, and this First Amendment shall not change or modify
the terms of any options outstanding under the Plan on the date of its
adoption.

                                            Adopted by the Board of Directors
                                                     on February 12, 1997