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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6732 

To alter requirements associated with small business loan data collection, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2022 

Mr. HILL (for himself, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To alter requirements associated with small business loan 

data collection, 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 ‘‘Small Lenders Exempt 

5 from New Data and Excessive Reporting Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘Small LENDER Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION. 

8 Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

9 (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6732 IH

1 (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(4) COMPLIANCE.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to any 

5 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

6 on or after the date of the enactment of this 

7 paragraph, the Bureau shall provide financial 

8 institutions not less than 3 years to comply 

9 with such rule or guidance. 

10 ‘‘(B) SAFE HARBOR.—With respect to any 

11 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

12 on or after the date of the enactment of this 

13 paragraph, upon the 3-year period described in 

14 subparagraph (A), the Bureau shall provide a 

15 2-year safe harbor to all financial institutions 

16 during which the financial institutions are re17 quired to comply with the rule or guidance but 

18 not subject to any penalties.’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (h)— 

20 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert21 ing the following: 

22 ‘‘(1) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.—The term ‘fi23 nancial institution’ means— 

24 ‘‘(A) any partnership, company, corpora25 tion, association (incorporated or unincorVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:56 Feb 22, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6732.IH H6732

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6732 IH

1 porated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, 

2 or other entity that engages in any financial ac3 tivity; and 

4 ‘‘(B) in each of the two preceding calendar 

5 years, originated not less than 500 credit trans6 actions for small businesses.’’; and 

7 (B) by striking paragraph (2) and insert8 ing the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘small busi10 ness’ means any entity with gross annual revenues 

11 of $1,000,000 or less in the most recently completed 

12 fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6675 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an agreement 

with a nongovernmental entity to conduct an audit of the health care 

system of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter 

into an agreement with a nongovernmental entity to conduct an audit of the health care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Independent VA Audit 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6675 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUDIT OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OF THE DEPART2 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

3 (a) AUDIT.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

4 seek to enter into an agreement with a nongovernmental 

5 entity to conduct an audit of the health care system of 

6 the Department of Veterans Affairs, including with re7 spect to the timeliness of available appointments for vet8 erans to receive hospital care and medical services. 

9 (b) SUBMISSION.—Not later than December 31, 

10 2023, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on 

11 Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 

12 Senate the audit conducted under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 656 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 656

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 
   of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the 
                         District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2021

   Ms. Norton (for herself and Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 
   of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the 
                         District of Columbia.

    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 ``District of Columbia Police Home 
Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT TO ASSUME EMERGENCY CONTROL OF 
              POLICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) Repeal of Authority.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is 
amended by striking section 740 (sec. 1-207.40, D.C. Official Code).
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 740.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. CHRISTOPHER VANISTENDAEL, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 533 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 11th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 6, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-14440

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 96-06057-CV-JIC

TURNER GREENBERG ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

versus

C & C IMPORTS, INC., a California

corporation, d.b.a. Nancy Corzine,

Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellant,

versus

STEVE TURNER,

JANET GREENBERG,

Counter-Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 6, 2005)
2

Before BLACK, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The record fully supports the judgment of the district court. 

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                          55,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,570
<INVENTORY>                                    323,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               463,854
<PP&E>                                         941,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 383,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,665,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          338,918
<BONDS>                                      1,383,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,641
<OTHER-SE>                                   (133,257)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,665,522
<SALES>                                        746,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,388
<CGS>                                          581,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  581,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               177,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   703
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,371
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,312
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6276 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6276

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3045 Sacramento Street in Placerville, California, as the ``Deputy 
                  Sheriff Brian Ishmael Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2021

Mr. McClintock (for himself, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. McNerney, 
Mr. Issa, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Costa, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Garcia of 
California, Mr. Obernolte, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Valadao, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. 
 Levin of California, Ms. Porter, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Lieu, 
  Mr. Carbajal, Mrs. Kim of California, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Peters, Mr. 
  Harder of California, Mr. Swalwell, and Mr. Panetta) 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 3045 Sacramento Street in Placerville, California, as the ``Deputy 
                  Sheriff Brian Ishmael Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DEPUTY SHERIFF BRIAN ISHMAEL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3045 Sacramento Street in Placerville, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Deputy Sheriff Brian Ishmael 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 ``Deputy 
Sheriff Brian Ishmael Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 7767** 

WILLIE JOE STURKEY ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

DIRECTOR OF SCDC ; J. GASTON; LIEUTENANT BOUY, in their individual capacity, in their official capacity ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv
- 03451

- RMG )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Willie Joe Sturkey, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK, SANDERS & SIMMONS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Willie Joe Sturkey appeals the district court ’ s order
accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny his motions to appoint counsel and affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sturkey v.

D ir. of SCDC , No. 2:13

- cv
- 03451

- RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 17, 2014). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hussain SHELTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1608.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 2002.

Before KENNEDY, ALAN E. NORRIS, and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Hussain Shelton appeals from a jury verdict of guilty on all seven counts of an indictment that charged him with aiding and abetting in the unauthorized use of an access device, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), which in this case involved several instances of credit card fraud. On appeal, defendant raises a single assignment of error: that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When a defendant claims on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); *United States v. Wright,*16 F.3d 1429, 1439 (6th Cir.1994). When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the court does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. *United States v. Jackson,*55 F.3d 1219, 1225 (6th Cir.1995). The government may meet its burden through circumstantial evidence alone, and such evidence need not exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt. *United States v. Peters,*15 F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir.1994). “The government must be given the benefit of all inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence ... even if the evidence is circumstantial.” *United States v. Leal,*75 F.3d 219, 222 (6th Cir.1996) (quoting *United States v. Adamo,*742 F.2d 927, 932 (6th Cir.1984)).

After carefully reviewing the portions of the trial record submitted to us, we conclude that the government introduced sufficient evidence of guilt during the trial to satisfy the “rational juror” standard articulated in *Jackson v. Virginia.*Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that defendant was not only charged with credit card fraud, but also with aiding and abetting. That consideration, coupled with our standard of review, leads us to conclude that, while the evidence against defendant as to every count might not have been overwhelming, it was sufficient to pass constitutional muster.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6809 

To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico who are seeking 

to temporarily enter the United States for business through a land 

port of entry from any COVID–19 vaccination requirement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2022 

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

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To exempt commercial truck drivers from Canada or Mexico 

who are seeking to temporarily enter the United States 

for business through a land port of entry from any 

COVID–19 vaccination requirement. 

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 TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terminating Reckless 

5 and Unnecessary Checks Known to Erode Regular Ship6 ping Act’’ or the ‘‘TRUCKERS Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6809 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM COVID–19 VACCINATION RE2 QUIREMENT. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec4 retary of Homeland Security may not impose any COVID– 

5 19 vaccination requirement on any commercial truck driv6 er who is a national of Canada or of Mexico and is seeking 

7 to temporarily enter the United States for business 

8 through a land port of entry. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Ex Parte Chester Leland Burrow.

No. 25207.

March 7, 1951.

*Bracewell & Wright,*Huntsville, for relator.

*483
      *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Relator has filed his application for discharge from the penitentiary in which he alleges that he is being held by reason of six judgments against him, assessed by the district court of Wilson County in Causes No. 3338, 3339, 3340, 3341, 3342 and 3343.

In the first three cases of the numbers set out it is shown by the evidence furnished us by the district judge of Wilson County, upon request, that the relator was charged with theft of chickens of the value over $50.00. Apparently the proceeding was had under the theory that this charged a general theft of property of the value of more than $50,000 as defined by Article 1421 of the Penal Code. The indictment in each of the cases, however, was brought under Article 1442-b Vernon’s Ann. P.C. for the theft of chickens.

The value of the alleged property is immaterial. There being a special statute on the subject, resort cannot be had to the general statute in the manner shown by the record. See Article 1423 of the Penal Code. This is made very clear in the case of Lee v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep. 429, 28 S.W. 2d 559. It follows, then, that because of the excessive penalty in each of the three foregoing cases the judgments against him are void.

In Causes No. 3341, 3342 and 3343 valid judgments assess penalties of two years each, which ran concurrently.

It is further shown, in accordance with the pleadings filed in this cause, that relator entered his plea of guilty in the district court of Bexar County on the 31st day of October, 1949, in Cause No. 5119, and was assessed a penalty for theft of chickens of two years which should begin to run on the 2nd day of September, 1949. The prison record furnished by the general manager of the penitentiary shows that relator has served in excess of two years, including the good time allowed him.

Finding from the record that all of the valid judgments of two years each have run concurrently; that he has served more than two years including the good time with which he is credited; and upon the finding that all of the five year sentences against him, as shown by the corrected judgments from Wilson County, are void; relator is entitled to his release. It is there*484fore ordered that he be released from the state penitentiary so far as he is being held by reason of the judgments and sentences herein discussed.
#### SAHARA-TAHOE CORPORATION, Petitioners, *v.*NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 75-2036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 29, 1976.

*1126Everett F. Meiners (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Paul J. Spielberg (argued), NLRB, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable William G. East, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board which followed findings on two unfair labor practices on the part of the management of a hotel. We enforce the order in part and deny enforcement in part.

The alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (3) (1970), consisted in the discharge of Audrey J. Hewitt, an employee, because of her activities on behalf of a labor union. We have reviewed the evidence and have concluded that the findings of the administrative law judge, which were ratified by the Board, are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The remedy provided in the Board’s order (reinstatement and other relief) is correct as a matter of law, and the order in this respect is entitled to be enforced.

The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(1) in the unlawful and coercive interrogation of waitress Bernice Eggerman is not supported by evidence. The evidence was that a supervisory employee asked Ms. Eggerman if she was “going to join the union.” The efforts of the union and the general counsel to build this relatively innocuous question into an unfair labor practice falls short of proof of the necessary coercive atmosphere to make this a violation. Some anxiety may have followed in the wake of the firing of the union organizer, Ms. Hewitt, but the conversation with Ms. Eggerman preceded the Hewitt discharge. The findings of fact indicate that the Eggerman episode occurred “early in July” and the Hewitt episode occurred July 27, 1974. The record reveals no coercive behavior on the part of the management prior to or contemporaneous with that conversation. Ms. Eggerman, who testified about the conversation, as did other witnesses, expressed no awareness of anti-union pressure from management. Counsel had every opportunity to bring out evidence of coercion if it existed.

The Board will present a form of order providing appropriate relief to Ms. Hewitt and omitting reference to the alleged coercive interrogation.

Judgment will be entered upon the presentation of a proper order.
Exhibit 35.1.4


GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

CMLTI 2006-AR3


I, Michael De Francesco, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable portion
thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing
agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
all material respects throughout such period.


        Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Agreement.


Date: February 28, 2007


/s/ Michael De Francesco
------------------------------------
Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
Opinion i ssued April 14 , 201 5

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 1 5
- 00201
- CR NO. 01
- 15
- 00202
- CR NO. 01
- 15
- 00203
- CR NO. 01
- 15
- 00204
- CR NO. 01
- 15
- 00205
- CR

____________ CODY CRYMES , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s. 17161, 17162, 17163, 17164 and 17165

MEMORANDUM OPINION2 Counsel for appellant, Cody Crymes , has filed a motion to dismiss these appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a). Crymes has signed the motion to dismiss. We have not issued a decision in the appeal s. Accordingly, we dis miss the appeal s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. We direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this opinion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 18.1.
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).