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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5841 

Making continuing appropriations for the salary and expenses of certain 

excepted employees of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. STRONG, Ms. LEE of Florida, Mr. EZELL, Mr. 

BRECHEEN, Ms. DE LA CRUZ, Mr. CISCOMANI, and Mr. GUEST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making continuing appropriations for the salary and expenses of certain excepted employees of U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 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 ‘‘Homeland Heroes Pay 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5841 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN EM2 PLOYEES OF CBP AND ICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated for fiscal 

4 year 2024, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 

5 appropriated, such sums as are necessary to pay, during 

6 the period of any lapse in discretionary appropriations in 

7 such fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2023, the salaries 

8 and expenses of— 

9 (1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents 

10 and officers who are performing mission critical 

11 functions at United States Southwest, Northern, and 

12 maritime border ports of entry, and between such 

13 ports of entry, including preventing terrorists, ter14 rorists weapons, illegal aliens, illicit drugs, and other 

15 illegal contraband; and 

16 (2) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce17 ment officers and agents who conduct— 

18 (A) immigration enforcement, including de19 taining and removing aliens (as defined in sec20 tion 101 of the Immigration and Nationality 

21 Act); and 

22 (B) investigations of criminal operations 

23 and organizations, including— 

24 (i) the illegal trade of contraband 

25 such as goods, weapons, and drugs; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5841 IH

1 (ii) the smuggling and trafficking of 

2 people. 

3 (b) TERMINATION.—Appropriations and funds made 

4 available and authority granted pursuant to this section 

5 shall be available until whichever of the following first oc6 curs: 

7 (1) The enactment into law of an appropriation 

8 (including a continuing appropriation) for any pur9 pose for which amounts are made available in sub10 section (a). 

11 (2) The enactment into law of the applicable 

12 regular or continuing appropriations resolution or 

13 other Act without any appropriation for such pur14 pose. 

15 (3) January 1, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Anthony Palumbo, Defendant.

County Court, Kings County,

*June 8, 1955.*

*230
      *Jacob Hertz*for defendant.

*William Siegel, Assistant District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

Carmine J. Marasco, J.

The defendant was indicted in 1935, in Kings County, jointly with two others for the crimes of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny and assault in the second degree. On August 28, 1935, he was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery in the first degree. On September 13, 1935, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to a term of 30 years in State prison. Following the judgment of conviction, defendant appealed to the Appellate Division. The judgment was unanimously affirmed (247 App. Div. 811). This is a motion in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate and set aside this judgment of conviction and sentence. . The testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing on this motion reveals that the jury, during its deliberations, requested further instructions on two separate occasions. In each instance counsel for this defendant was not present and was not notified. An attempt, by counsel for the codefendant, to inform the court of that fact was summarily rejected by the Trial Judge who then proceeded to give the jury further instructions on these two occasions. It appears that the trial court may have been under the erroneous impression that cocounsel was authorized to represent this defendant. As a matter of fact, however, he had no authority to represent this defendant. He testified to that effect as did the defendant petitioner. Unfortunately, the record of the trial also contained this error because the stenographer indicated therein that both defendants were present with their counsel in both instances and then named codefendant’s counsel as the attorney for both defendants. After conviction and sentence, this defendant’s mother retained other counsel to take an appeal. He never discussed the appeal with this defendant and prepared it on the record which was in error on this vital point. The defendant petitioner contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in that his counsel was not present and was not notified of the requests made by the jury for further instructions as required by section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court finds that the contention of the defendant petitioner is borne out by the evidence. He was, therefore, deprived of due process and his constitutional rights violated in that he was not represented by counsel at this crucial stage of the trial.

The motion is granted and the judgment of conviction and sentence on this indictment set aside. It is directed that the defendant be produced before me at Trial Term, Part III, of this court, for arraignment on the 14th day of June, 1955.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30318

Summary Calendar

 

EDDIE LEE MARSHALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE N. LYNN; JOHN P. WHITLEY; RICHARD

PEABODY, Colonel; DORA RABALAIS; DARREL

VANNOY; (UNKNOWN) CALVERT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 90-CV-500

- - - - - - - - - -

July 18, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Lee Marshall, # 87459, appeals the district court’s

dismissal on summary judgment grounds of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action. Section 1983 requires a violation of a

constitutional or a statutory right. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d

1116, 1123 (5th Cir. 1986). Marshall has not demonstrated a

deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Giovanni v. Lynn,

48 F.3d 908, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 167
(1995);Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2295 (1995)), cert. denied,

116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996). 

Marshall’s appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolous appeal is without

arguable merit in law and fact). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We previously warned Marshall in Marshall v. Stalder, No.

93-3842 (5th Cir. May 17, 1994), that further frivolous appeals

would invite the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, Marshall

is barred from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis, civil appeal

in this court, or any pro se, in forma pauperis, initial civil

pleading in any court which is subject to this court's

jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge

of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all

federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to

Marshall, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with

this bar.

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5936 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5936

 To require institutions of higher education to designate at least one 
employee to coordinate compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
                    of 1964, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 2023

 Mr. Aguilar (for himself, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Watson 
    Coleman, Mr. Gomez, and Ms. Meng) introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

        Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require institutions of higher education to designate at least one 
employee to coordinate compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
                    of 1964, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Students' Civil Rights 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

    Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30) The institution will--
                    ``(A) designate at least one employee to coordinate 
                compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
                1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), including any 
                investigation of any complaint alleging--
                            ``(i) noncompliance with such title; and
                            ``(ii) any actions prohibited by such 
                        title;
                    ``(B) annually submit a report to the Secretary 
                that includes all complaints described in subparagraph 
                (A) with respect to such institution;
                    ``(C) make the report under subparagraph (B) 
                publicly available on the internet website of the 
                institution; and
                    ``(D) notify students and employees of--
                            ``(i) the name, office address, and 
                        telephone number of each employee designated 
                        under subparagraph (A);
                            ``(ii) the report under subparagraph (B);
                            ``(iii) the enforcement policies of the 
                        institution with respect to such title; and
                            ``(iv) the procedure for reporting and 
                        investigating complaints under such title.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:17-mj-00448-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00448-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00448-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00448-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Deerfield Capital Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
|                                                          | Date:  November 9, 2009 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                                          |                         |
| /s/ JONATHAN W.  TRUTTER                                      |                         |
| Jonathan W.  Trutter                                          |                         |
| Chief Executive  Officer                                      |                         |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)                                |                         |
|                                                          |                         |
|                                                          | Date:  November 9, 2009 |
|                                                          |                         |
| /s/ FRANCIS P.  STRAUB III                                    |                         |
| Francis P.  Straub III,                                       |                         |
| Senior Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |                         |
| (Principal  Financial Officer)                                |                         |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12127]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision
[AC-31; OTS Nos. H-2678 and 00423]


Kenwood Federal M.H.C., Cincinnati, Ohio; Approval of Conversion 
Application

    Notice is hereby given that on April 30, 1996, the Director, 
Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, 
acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of 
Kenwood Federal M.H.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, to convert to the stock form 
of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection 
at the Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552, and the Central Regional Office, 
Office of Thrift Supervision, 200 West Madison Street, Suite 1300, 
Chicago, Illinois 60606.

    Dated: May 9, 1996.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12127 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24794-24795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12268]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

Winston International Inc., 327 Filmore Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32225
    Officers: Yee Wah Fong, Director; Raymond Francis Chan, Offficer
Clarandon Freight Forwarders, 10650 SW 186 Lane, Miami, FL 33157
    Officers: Gerard M. Thompson, President; Gloria Golson, Vice 
President
ABACO International Shippers, Inc., 4201 W. Wrightwood Avenue, Chicago, 
IL 60639
    Officers: Marshall Berkenbilt, President; Beverly Berkenbilt, Vice 
President
Mid-Atlantic Freight Forwarding and Customs Brokerage, Inc., 898 
Airport Park Road, Suite 205, Glen Burnie, MD 21061
    Officers: Deborah E. Weiman, President; Robin L. Truitt, Secretary
Cargo Services, Inc., 5760 Dividend Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46241
    Officers: John Rowe, President; William Batton, Vice President

[[Page 24795]]

Coda International Inc., 880 Bergen Avenue, Suite 604, Jersey City, NJ 
07306
    Officers: David Zong Wen Chen, President; Wai Ling C. Loke, Exec. 
Vice President
5 H Corporation d/b/a/ International Shipping, Inc., 6303 Little River 
Turnpike, Suite 310, Alexandria, VA 22312
    Officers: Moses Housien, President; Ali Campos, Vice President
Team Air Express, Inc. d/b/a Team International Logistics, 639 West 
Broadway (P.O. Box 668), Winnsboro, TX 75494
    Officers: Joe Earl Brunson, President; Bobby Joe Brunson, Vice 
President
Lilly & Associates--International Freight Forwarders, Inc., 14525 S.W. 
152nd Terrace, Miami, FL 33177
    Officers: Nelson R. Cabrera, President; Vilma L. Cabrera, Secretary

    Dated: May 13, 1996.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12268 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 241ST DISTRIC T COURT OF SMITH COU NTY, GREETING:
Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 25 th
day of March, 2015 , the cause up on appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

EARNEST MARK BROWNIN G , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00179

- CR; Trial Court No. 241

- 0488

- 14

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its ord er in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein; and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the trial court’s judgment

below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed

.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the trial court’s judgment below be modified to delete the amount of $180.00 payable to the DPS lab as

restitution ; and as modified , the trial court’s judgment is affirmed ; and that this decision be

certif ied to the trial court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WIT NESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 19 th day of Ma y , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

______________________ _________ Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Williamson *v.*Williamson *et al.*

No. 3337.

December 15, 1922.

Rehearing denied February 16, 1923.

Petition- for injunction. Before Judge Hardeman. Emanuel superior court. June 5, 1922.

*Arthur W. Jordan,*for plaintiff.

*Herrington & Durden,*for defendants.

Gilbert, J.

Where the only ground upon which an attachment was issued is abandoned, no judgment can be rendered against the sureties on the replevy bond. There being no ground for the attachment, the bond given to dissolve such attachment is void. The giving of such bond is not an appearance in the attachment case, so as to make valid a judgment entered up on the bond against the sureties. The judgment is wholly void, and a surety may make and file an affidavit of illegality in resistance to a levy upon his property under an execution founded on the judgment. Illegality is the proper defensive remedy; and therefore the court did not err in refusing to grant an injunction. Civil Code (1910), § 5311; *Hart*v. *Lazaron,*46 *Ga.*396; *Maund*v. *Keating,*55 *Ga.*396; *Planters Bank*v. *Berry,*91 *Ga.*264 (18 S. E. 137); *Park*v. *Callaway,*128 *Ga.*119 (4) (57 S. E. 229); Harrell *v*. *Davis Wagon Co.,*140 *Ga.*127 (78 S. E. 713). On the question of whether the judgment against the security was void, see *Neal*v. *Gordon,*60 *Ga.*112, and the admirable opinion of Powell, J., in *C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.*v. *Pless & Slade,*3 *Ga. App.*400, at p. 403 (60 S. E. 8). The power of the court to render judgment against the defendant in attachment is not questioned. Civil Code (1910), § 5121; *Thompson*v. *Wright,*22 *Ga.*607; *Walter*v. *Kierstead,*74 *Ga.*18; *King*v. *Randall,*95 *Ga.*449 (22 S. E. 683); *Woodbridge*v. *Drought,*118 *Ga.*671 (45

S. E. 266). *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

UPON MOTION POR REHEARING.

Russell, C. J.

The decision in this case was rendered before my accession to the bench, but the motion for a rehearing comes before me.

*789A motion for rehearing should not be granted merely to review a case carefully considered; and certainly not unless it appears that this court has overlooked some matter either of law or of evidence, the consideration of which would very likely induce the court to change its original judgment. Upon consideration of the motion for a rehearing in this case it appears that the agreement of counsel, which movant insists was overlooked, was carefully considered, though it was not deemed necessary to refer to the same in the decision. *Rehearing denied.*
2 9 7 Ga . 3 7

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 A0 50 7 . BADEN v . OCHOA-HERNANDEZ.
THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e . Th e tria l c o urt g ra n te d re lie f in th is h a b e a s c orp u s c a s e p u rsu a n t to a n
o rd e r wh ic h re a d s, in its e n tire ty :

Afte r he a rin g e vid e n c e in th e a b o v e -sty le d c a se , it is h e re b y
o rd e re d th a t th e gu ilty p le a in th is c a se , wh ic h wa s in th e S up e rio r Co u rt o f G win n e tt Co u n t y , b e with dra w n a n d th e c o n v ic tio n
a sso c ia te d th e re wit h b e v a c a te d an d se t a sid e . [Ap p e lle e ] sh a ll b e
r e m a n d e d t o G w i nn e t t Co u n ty fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s in a c c o r d a n c e with th is o rd e r.

Th e ward e n a

p p e a ls. Be c a u se th e o rd e r g ra n tin g h a

b e a s re lie f d o e s n o t c o n ta in writte n fin d in g s
o f fa c ts a n d c o n c lu sio n s o f la w up on w h ic h th e ju d g m e nt is b a se d , it fa ils to

m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts o f OCGA § 9 -1 4 -4 9

. Ac c ord in gly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th eh a

b e a s c o u rt is v a c a te d a n d th e c a se re m a nd e d fo r issu a n c e o f a n o rd e r in

c o m p lia n c e with OCGA § 9 -1 4 -4 9

. Se e T h o m a s v . S ta te , 2 8 4 Ga

. 3 27 , 3 2 8 (2 ) (6 6 7 SE2 d 3 7 5 ) (2 0 0 8 ), o v e rru le d o n o th e r g ro u n d s, Cro sso n v . Co n way , 2 9 1 Ga . 2 20 , 2 2 2 (7 2 8 S E2 d6 1 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Ju d g m e n t v a c a te d a n d c a se re m a n d e d with dire c t i o n. All th e Ju stic e s
c o n c u r.

De c id e dAp ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 5. Ha b e a s c orp u s. Ca lh o u n S up e rio r Co u rt. Be fo re Ju d g e Ca to
. S a m u e l S

. Ole ns, Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, P a tric ia B

. Atta way Bu rto n , De p u ty Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l, P a

ula K. S m ith , S e n io r Assista nt Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, Me g h a n H. Hill, Assista n t Atto rn e y Ge n e ra l, fo r a

p pe lla n t. Mc Arth u r Law F irm , Ca le b F

. Wa lk e r; S a ra h L. Ge rwig -Mo o re , Ma ttie L. Ha rd in , Ma rle n e Ote ro , Do ro th yP a

u l, fo r a p p e lle e .

23