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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 762

To reestablish the revenue sharing program of annual payments to States

and units of general local government, to authorize appropriations for

payments under the program, and to offset that authorization by reducing the authorization of appropriations for foreign aid.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 31, 1995

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and, in addition, to the

Committee on International Relations, 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 reestablish the revenue sharing program of annual payments to States and units of general local government,

to authorize appropriations for payments under the program, and to offset that authorization by reducing the

authorization of appropriations for foreign aid.

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 ‘‘Revenue Sharing Rees5 tablishment Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 762 IH

1 SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF REVENUE SHARING PRO2 GRAM.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c),

4 the Secretary of the Treasury shall make payments to

5 States and units of general local government in accordance

6 with the provisions of chapter 67 of title 31, United States

7 Code (formerly known as the ‘‘Revenue Sharing Act’’), as

8 in effect on April 6, 1986 (in this section referred to as

9 ‘‘chapter 67’’).

10 (b) ENTITLEMENT PERIOD DEFINED.—Notwith11 standing section 6701(a)(1) of chapter 67, for purposes

12 of this section the term ‘‘entitlement period’’ (as used in

13 chapter 67) means each fiscal year after fiscal year 1995.

14 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Notwith15 standing section 6703(b) (1) and (2) of chapter 67, there

16 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the

17 Treasury to carry out this section $5,000,000,000. For

18 purposes of this section, amounts appropriated under this

19 subsection shall be treated as amounts in the Trust Fund

20 (as that term is used in chapter 67).

21 SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED TO BE AP22 PROPRIATED FOR FOREIGN AID.

23 The amount authorized to be appropriated for aid to

24 foreign governments for fiscal years after fiscal year 1995

25 is reduced by $5,000,000,000.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47197-47198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

[[Page 47198]]

is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism; Special Emphasis Panel AA3 Member Conflict Applications.
    Date: October 15, 2008.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Katrina L. Foster, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Inst on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National 
Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm. 3042, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-443-4032, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6902081d1b000708290408000547070001470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c070d181e05020d2c010d050042020504420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18514 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

October 17, 2019

s1010 

# Order

Clerk October 17, 2019

159553

DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL, a/k/a DEBORAH K.

SCHLUSSEL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159553

COA: 341202

Washtenaw CC: 17

- 000838

- CZ

CITY OF ANN ARBOR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2019

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6220 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6220

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, as the ``Charles P. 
                          Nord Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

Mrs. Fischbach (for herself, Mr. Hagedorn, Ms. Craig, Mr. Phillips, Ms. 
    McCollum, Ms. Omar, Mr. Emmer, and Mr. Stauber) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, as the ``Charles P. 
                          Nord Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CHARLES P. NORD POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Charles P. Nord Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles P. 
Nord Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6221 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, as the ‘‘James A. Rogers 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mrs. FISCHBACH (for herself, Mr. HAGEDORN, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. PHILLIPS, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Ms. OMAR, Mr. EMMER, and Mr. STAUBER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, 

as the ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JAMES A. ROGERS JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 155 Main Avenue West in 

6 Winsted, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6221 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. 

5 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Cornell ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 72-2183

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1972.

Cornell Robinson, pro se.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Don C. Dickert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for respondent-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, an Alabama state prisoner, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Appellant is serving a 29-year sentence for robbery imposed March 27, 1968. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Robinson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 236, 228 So.2d 850 (1969). A petition to the trial court for writ of error coram nobis was denied after evi-dentiary hearing. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed without a written opinion. Robinson v. State (8th Div. 211, Jan. 11, 1972) (unreported judgment). Appellant then filed his ha-*691beas petition alleging that (1) he was deprived of counsel at the time his photograph was displayed to the victim and at a lineup; (2) the lineup was unfairly constituted; (3) the state denied him an appeal from the denial of his petition for the writ of coram nobis; and (4) he was denied counsel for the eoram nobis appeal.

Without evidentiary hearing the District Court denied the petitions.

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), do not apply, since the lineup was held prior to institution of the judicial criminal proceedings against him. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). However, he is entitled to relief if the identification procedures were “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to be a denial of due process. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Among its findings the court below stated, “Based upon Petitioner’s allegations which are not contradicted, the line-up was not fairly conducted.” A determination is then required as to whether the in-court identification was influenced by the suggestive line-up. Poster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). The court went on to find from the testimony of the victim at the coram nobis hearing that the in-court identification was not tainted by the prejudicial lineup or the display of photographs. The transcript of that hearing does not sufficiently support that finding. We have, however, obtained and have examined the state trial transcript which contains a large body of evidence demonstrating that the in-court identification of appellant by the victim was of an origin independent from and uninfluenced by the lineup.

Appellant’s remaining allegations are without merit.

Affirmed.
#### Charles A. Ball, Respondent, v. Minnie H. Westcott, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 21, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1956 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-230879) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


	 	/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


February 21, 2020
NUMBER 13-14-00388-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD FREYMANN,

RICHARD LEE WALLIS, AND BERNADETTE GALVAN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion1 Per Curiam 

Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, Richard Lee Wallis, and 

Bernadette Galvan, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court 

direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th 

District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified 

plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought against 

relators by the real party in interest, Victor Garza Jr., until sixty days after he provides

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

relators with a notice letter for his claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the 

claimed damages and attorney’s fees. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.154 (West, 

Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw 

through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original 

Proceedings). By order previously issued in this cause, this Court granted temporary 

relief and requested that the real party in interest file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a),(b). Such response has been duly filed.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of 

mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm 

Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL _____ 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-14-00348-CV. Accordingly, the Court 

LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court and DENIES the petition for writ of 

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

2nd day of September, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1998, and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the three months ended March 31, 1998, 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      451,217
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     95,173
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          97,371
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,018
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 655,779
<COMMON>                                        58,828
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       36,316
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            115,989
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 211,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     20,831
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           187,033
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   18,197
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 200,585
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  655,779
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       96,909
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               112
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      91,351
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      91,463
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          5,446
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 442
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   5,888
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,949
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,758
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        590
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    5,168
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,633
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,843
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          11,778
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gas
Transmission Northwest Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, I, William H. Runge III, Chief Financial Officer of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                         
|---------------- |  | ------------------------
|October 29, 2004 |  | /s/ William H. Runge III
|                 |  | William H. Runge III    
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer 



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and will be retained by Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Carlos L. Chasco v. State.

No. 24632.

February 1, 1950.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

William *E. Clayton,*District Attorney, and *Rutledge Isaacks,*Assistant District Attorney, El Paso, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Burglary is the offense; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

About four o’clock on the morning of March 24, 1949, two police officers of the city of El Paso, while cruising in a patrol car, noticed appellant and one Reynosa at a filling station and, because of their action and conduct, took them into custody. There were found, in appellant’s possession, a guitar and, in Reynosa’s, a typewriter. The two men were carried to the police *240station. At that time the police officers had no information that-a burglary had been committed; they began an investigation and subsequently discovered that the drug store, or pharmacy, of Acosta had been broken into and burglarized that night. The typewriter and guitar found in the possession of Reynosa and appellant were definitely identified as having been taken from the burglarized premises.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, denied any knowledge of or participation in the burglary. He explained his possesison of the guitar by saying that just prior to the time the officers arrested them he chanced to meet Reynosa, who handed him the guitar and asked that he help him by carrying it. Appellant also testified to an alibi, in which he was corroborated by another witness.

The trial court pertinently submitted to the jury the defensive issues of alibi and explanation by appellant of his possession of the recently stolen property. These the jury rejected.

The jury’s rejection of appellant’s explanation of his possession of the recently stolen guitar constitutes a finding that the explanation made was not reasonable. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction must be tested in the light of this finding.

The unexplained possession of property recently stolen from a burglarized house is a sufficient circumstance upon which a jury may convict the possessor of the property for the burglary. Authorities attesting the rule are numerous, and will be found collated in 6 Tex. Digest, p. 869, Key 42.

The facts are sufficient to support the verdict. Appellant’s admission, while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, of his possession of the recently stolen guitar rendered untenable his objection to proof thereof because of an alleged unlawful arrest. Valenzuela v. State, 153 Texas Crim. Rep. 623; 224 S. W. 2d 239; Soble v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 218 S. W. 2d 195.

Other bills of exception appearing in the record have been examined, and are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.