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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 575

To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that annuities

for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as applies

to Federal employees generally, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. GOODLATTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to

provide that annuities for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as applies to Federal

employees generally, 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. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.

4 Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘or Member’’

7 after ‘‘employee’’; and

8 (2) by repealing subsection (b).
2

•HR 575 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTRIBUTIONS.

2 (a) DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY.—Section 8422(a)(2) of

3 title 5, United States Code, is amended—

4 (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘or Mem5 ber’’ after ‘‘employee)’’; and

6 (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘Mem7 ber,’’.

8 (b) GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section

9 8423(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

10 (1) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ‘‘sub11 paragraph (B)),’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (B))

12 and Members,’’;

13 (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by inserting ‘‘and

14 Members’’ before ‘‘(under’’;

15 (3) in subparagraph (B)(i) by striking ‘‘Mem16 bers,’’; and

17 (4) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ‘‘and

18 Members’’.

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; SAVINGS PROVISION.

20 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect as

21 of the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning

22 after the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date

23 of the enactment of this Act.

24 (b) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Any annuity or portion of

25 an annuity computed based on service performed before

26 the effective date of this Act shall be computed in accord-
3

•HR 575 IH

1 ance with applicable provisions of law, as in effect imme2 diately before the effective date of this Act.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DARNELL THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONS OFFICER B. SHAFFER, LT. M. THOMAS, CAPT. BRADLEY SHEEDER, CAPT. HARDING, AND HEARING EXAMINER
FRANK NUNEZ, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 11 EAP 2020

Appeal from Order of

Commonwealth Court dated
November 22, 2019 at 617 MD

2018.

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 25, 2021

AND NOW, this 25 th day of March , 2021

, the order of the Commonwealth Court is

AFFIRMED

.
H. R. 740

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims with respect

to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

Notwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of title 28, United

States Code, and section 12 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60

Stat. 1052), or any other law which would interpose or support

a defense of untimeliness, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon

the United States Court of Federal Claims to hear, determine,

and render judgment on any claim by Pueblo of Isleta Indian

Tribe of New Mexico against the United States with respect to

any lands or interests therein the State of New Mexico or any

adjoining State held by aboriginal title or otherwise which were

acquired from the tribe without payment of adequate compensation

by the United States. As a matter of adequate compensation, the

United States Claims Court may award interest at a rate of five

percent per year to accrue from the date on which such lands

or interests therein were acquired from the tribe by the United

States. Such jurisdiction is conferred only with respect to claims

accruing on or before August 13, 1946, and all such claims must

be filed within three years after the date of enactment of this

Act. Such jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding any failure of

the tribe to exhaust any available administrative remedy.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the Pueblo

of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on, or after the date

of the enactment of this Act under any judgment of the Indian

Claims Commission or any other authority with respect to any

lands that are the subject of a claim submitted by the tribe under

section 1 shall not be considered a defense, estoppel, or set-off
H. R. 740—2

to such claim, and shall not otherwise affect the entitlement to,

or amount of, any relief with respect to such claim.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00471

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal Distric t Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. C

- 2

- W011598

- 0842389

- D

Be fore Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J

. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### Ex parte Franklin Ro bert Elkins2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Fr anklin Robert El kins attempts to appeal from the trial court ’ s order

recomm end ing that the Texas C ourt of C riminal A ppeals deny his pro se A rticle 11.07
ap plication for writ of habeas corpus seeking postconviction relief from his May 26,
2 004 conviction for int ox ication m anslaughter. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar t.
11.07. This court has no jurisdiction over postconviction applications for writs of
habea s corpus in felony cases. See id. art. 11.07, § 3 ; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel

. Keene v. Cou rt of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1995) (orig. pr oceeding) (stating that “[j]urisdiction to grant post conviction habeas cor p us relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with” the C ourt of C riminal
A ppeals)

. Acc ordingly , by letter dated December 18, 2019, we notified Elkin s o f our concern that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and warned him that we

co u ld dis miss it for that re ason unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing it

. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Elkins filed a r esp onse, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal. 1 We therefore dismiss this app eal for want of jur i sdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
Per Curiam

Delivered : January 30, 2020

1 In his response t o our jurisdiction letter, Elkins re quest ed that we appoint counsel to assi st him with filing his brief. We deny his reque st as moot.
# United States Court o f Ap peals For the First Circuit

No. 03-2143 AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, Plaintiff, ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v. DANIEL J. CAPUANO, JR.; JACK CAPUANO; UNITED SANITATION, INC., Defendants, Appellants, A. CAPUANO BROS., INC.; CAPUANO ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 18, 2004 is amended as follows: On page 19, line 17: "Capuanos's" should be "Capuanos"; On page 33, line 22: "Transportation" should be "Sanitation"; On page 38, lines 4, 18 and 20 and on page 39, line 5: All references to "section 9607(3)" should instead read "section 9607(a)(3)"; On page 38, line 23: The first reference to "persons" [inside quotation mark] should be "person"; On page 48, line 10: "Capuanos" should be "Capuanos'".
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 778

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage

of an annual screening mammography under part B of the medicare

program for women age 65 or older.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1995

Mrs. VUCANOVICH (for herself and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce and, in addition, to

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for coverage of an annual screening mammography under

part B of the medicare program for women age 65

or older.

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 ‘‘Equal Access to An5 nual Screening Mammography Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds the following:
2

•HR 778 IH

1 (1) Breast cancer is the second leading cause of

2 death by cancer in women.

3 (2) An estimated 182,000 new invasive cases of

4 breast cancer in the United States are expected dur5 ing 1995.

6 (3) An estimated 46,240 individuals are ex7 pected to die of breast cancer during 1995, of whom

8 46,000 will be women.

9 (4) There is no cure for breast cancer.

10 (5) Early detection is the key to survival of this

11 devastating disease.

12 (6) Mammography is recognized as a valuable

13 diagnostic technique for the detection of breast

14 cancer.

15 (7) The American Cancer Society and the Na16 tional Cancer Institute recommend an annual mam17 mogram for women over age 50.

18 SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF ANNUAL SCREENING MAMMOG19 RAPHY UNDER MEDICARE FOR WOMEN AGE

20 65 OR OLDER.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(c)(2)(A) of the So22 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(c)(2)(A)) is amend23 ed—

24 (1) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘but under 65

25 years of age,’’; and
3

•HR 778 IH

1 (2) by striking clause (v).

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

3 subsection (a) shall apply to screening mammography per4 formed on or after January 1, 1996.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1


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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Levcor
         International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
         date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert A. Levinson, Chief Executive
         Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 6, 2004

By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ------------------------------
    Robert A. Levinson
    Chief Executive Officer

                                    Page 29
#### Mendise *v.*City of Cleveland.

(No. 23739

Decided October 13, 1932.)

*Mr. Louis Fernberg*and *Mr. Hubert J. McCaffery,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. George Kerr,*director of law, *Mr. Frank M. Surts*and *Mr. M. Keith Wilson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Stephenson, JJ., concur.

Kinkade, J., not participating.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-91368 of RTW, Inc. on form S-8/S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-91372 of
RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-98966 of RTW, Inc. on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
reports dated March 25, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
RTW, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.




                                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 31, 2003
# ~ OLSINELLI 2950 N. Harwood Street, Ste. 2100, Dallas, TX, 75201 • 214.397.0030 September 3, 2015

VIAE-FILE Court ofAppeals Second District ofTexas ATTN: Court Clerk 401 W. Belknap, Suite 9000 Fort Worth, Texas 76196 Andrew M. Johnson (214) 661-5507 Direct (214) 397-0033 Facsimile amjohnson@polsinelli.com

Re: Court ofAppeals Number02-15-00268-CV; Molly Bellefeuille, DVM v. Dear Clerk: Equine Sports Medicine & Surgery, Weatherford Division, PLLC; Trial Court Case No. CV15-0775 Appellee Equine Sports Medicine & Surgery, Weatherford Division, PLLC requests a copy of the Clerks Record entered on August 26, 2015 and a copy ofthe Reporter/Recorders Record entered on September 1, 2015. Once the copies are ready, please contact me at (214) 661-5507 or amjohnson@polsinelli.com or my assistant, Maurin Phillips, at (214) 661-5520 or 

### mJphillips(@polsinelli.com.

AMJ:mlp

polsinelli.com Atlanta St. Louis Chicago Dallas Washington, DC Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California 51203228.l Denver Wilmington wM. Johnson

Kansas City Los Angeles Nashville New York Phoenix San Francisco ACCEPTED 02-15-00268-CV SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 9/3/2015 12:01:06 PM DEBRA SPISAK CLERK
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Webco Industries,
Inc. (the Company) for the year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, F.
William Weber, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the
Company, certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. This certification is deemed to accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K,
but is not deemed filed for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. Date: October 29, 2004 /s/ F. William Weber  Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

E L P AS O W ATER U TILITIES S YSTEM

P UBLIC S ERVICE B OARD and T HE C ITY

OF EL PASO , T EXAS

,

Appellant s

,

v.

ARYAN MARIVANI

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00071

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV1432)

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellants ’ plea to the jurisdiction

and motion to dismiss. We render judgment on behalf of Appellants.

We further order that Appellant s recover from Appellee the appellate costs incurred by

Appellant s and all costs incurred in the court below, for which let execution issue. This decision

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 6 TH DAY O F JULY, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### John Miller, Appellant, v. John M. Gardner, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 32.1





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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert O. Bond, as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/   ROBERT O. BOND


Robert O. Bond


President and Chief Operating Officer





August 6, 2009











This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to Telular Corporation Sixth Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan of our reports dated December 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Telular Corporation, Telular Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Telular Corporation included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005.

|              | Ernst & Young LLP |
|-------------------|-----------------------|
|              |                  |
|              |                  |
| Chicago, Illinois |                  |
| December 9, 2005  |                  |
#### COLE v. LIST & WEATHERLY CONST. CO. et al.

No. 4832.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1934.

Wm. C. Boone, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

When this case was originally before us, there were two questions considered, discussed at length, and decided:

1. Did plaintiff deliberately fail tp use an adequate guard or protection (a ladder) against accident?

2. Is the disability of which he complains traceable to or the result, directly or indirectly, of the accident which befell him while in defendant’s employment?

The first question, one of law, it is conceded, was resolved by the lower court in defendant’s favor, and the ease dismissed. After thorough consideration of that question, we held that under the facts and eircum-stanc'es of the case, the ladder was not a guard or protection within the purview of t)he Workmen’s Compensation Law (Act No. 20 of 1914, § 28), and reversed the lower court on the point (156 So. 88). We also held, on the question of fact, that plaintiff had clearly failed to prove his case; that while he was suffering from a diseased coccyx, to the extent he was disabled to do the work he was fitted to perform, yet it had not been established that the disease producing the impairment was traceable to or had any causal connection with the accident alleged upon. In support of our conclusions in this respect, we quoted at length the allegations of plaintiffs petition. These do not disclose that when the petition was filed plaintiff was suffering from an injured coccyx, but rather negative the present contention by him that he fell on his buttocks.

Inasmuch as the legal question involved appeared to have been given primary place originally by plaintiff, we decided to grant his application for rehearing so that he would be afforded ample opportunity,to again argue and brief the fact question involved. This has been done. We have again studied the ease closely, and have given due attention and consideration to plaintiff’s second presentation of his case, but have experienced no change In our original conviction that the case is with defendant on the fact question presented. As all the facts and issues involved are fully detailed and discussed in our first opinion, it would be superfluous to iterate them here.

For the reasons assigned, our original judgment herein is reinstated and made the final decree in the case.
#### Eugen Wegner, Respondent, v. Samuel O. Vanderpoel, Sued Herein as William Vanderpoel, Appellant.

Order modified by limiting the examination of the defendant to the question as to the ownership of the machine, and the person in charge and his relation to the defendant. As so modified affirmed, without costs. Mo opinion. Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>   1

                                                -------------------------
                                                    [GALLORO LOGO]
                                                -------------------------

                                                     Sao Paulo, March 25, 1997

SELFCARE, INC.  



                           Re: CPEI ORGENICS LTDA.



                 "CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS"

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made apart of this Form
10-KSB, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement Nos.
33-15583 and 33-17855.

                                          GALLORO & ASSOCIADOS
                                          Auditores Independentes S/C
                                          CRC - SP n 05.851



                                          /s/ VICTOR DOMINGOS GALLORO
                                          Socio-Director
                                          CT-CRC-SP n 44.278
                                          Certified Public Accountant in Brazil
#### Buford Kennedy v. State

No. 25595.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. Roger Garrett, Judge Presiding.

*Reid & Reid,*Abilene, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for unlawfully selling whiskey in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail.

The purchaser named in the information testified that he purchased from appellant a half-pint of whisky, for which he paid him $2.50. He fixed the time and place of the purchase at about 4:30 o’clock on the afternoon of June 2, 1951, at appellant’s residence.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, denied the sale of the whisky to the prosecuting witness and testified that at the time fixed by the witness for the sale he was in the State of New Mexico. Other circumstances tended to corroborate this defense.

It is apparent that the defense of alibi was raised by the testimony.

Over proper objection and requested charge, the trial court refused to submit the defense of alibi to the jury. In doing so, he fell into error which requires a reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.