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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6628 

To provide appropriations for a border wall and provide for a moratorium 

on certain other funding, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2022 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia (for himself, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. PERRY, 

Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. BABIN, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, 

Mr. MASSIE, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. CAWTHORN, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. ROSENDALE, and Mrs. BOEBERT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 provide appropriations for a border wall and provide 

for a moratorium on certain other funding, 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 ‘‘Close Biden’s Open 

5 Border Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6628 IH

1 SEC. 2. BORDER WALL FUNDING. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is appropriated, out of any 

3 amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

4 $15,000,000,000 for the Secretary of Homeland Security 

5 to construct a border wall along the southern border of 

6 the United States. To the extent available, such amounts 

7 shall be derived from the unobligated balance of amounts 

8 appropriated (as of the day before the date of the enact9 ment of this Act) for the purpose described in subsection 

10 (b). 

11 (b) MORATORIUM.—Notwithstanding any other pro12 vision of law, no amounts may be authorized to be appro13 priated or otherwise made available, during the 2-year pe14 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

15 for United States contributions to the United Nations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6891 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT 

To exclude government officials of the Russian Federation 

from certain international meetings, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6891 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Isolate Russian Gov3 ernment Officials Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF THE 

5 RUSSIAN FEDERATION. 

6 (a) POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.—It is the pol7 icy of the United States to seek to exclude government 

8 officials of the Russian Federation, to the maximum ex9 tent practicable, from participation in meetings, pro10 ceedings, and other activities of the following organiza11 tions: 

12 (1) Group of 20. 

13 (2) Bank for International Settlements. 

14 (3) Basel Committee for Banking Standards. 

15 (4) Financial Stability Board. 

16 (5) International Association of Insurance Su17 pervisors. 

18 (6) International Organization of Securities 

19 Commissions. 

20 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary of the Treas21 ury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys22 tem, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as the 

23 case may be, shall take all necessary steps to advance the 

24 policy set forth in subsection (a). 

25 (c) TERMINATION.—This section shall have no force 

26 or effect on the earlier of— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6891 RFS

1 (1) the date that is 5 years after the date of en2 actment of this Act; or 

3 (2) 30 days after the date that the President 

4 reports to Congress that the government of the Rus5 sian Federation has ceased its destabilizing activities 

6 with respect to the sovereignty and territorial integ7 rity of Ukraine. 

8 (d) WAIVER.—The President may waive the applica9 tion of this section if the President reports to the Congress 

10 that the waiver is in the national interest of the United 

11 States and includes an explanation of the reasons therefor. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Order entered October 1 6 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 01138 - CR No. 05 - 16 - 01139 - CR No. 05 - 16 - 01140 - CR DERRICK BRANNON SULL IVAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F - 1324555 - S



### O RDER Niles Illich’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for appellant is GRANTED . The clerk is directed to up date the court’ s records to reflect that Niles Illich is no longer appellant’s counsel of record and all future orders and notices are forwarded to appellant, pro se at: TDCJ No. 02092943, Wallace Unit, 1675 South FM 3525, Colorado City, TX 79512. Appell ant’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED

. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6692 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6692

  To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds relating to the 
Climate Change Professionals Program and any other program, project, or 
   activity relating to climate change of the Department of Homeland 
                   Security, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Homeland Security, 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 prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds relating to the 
Climate Change Professionals Program and any other program, project, or 
   activity relating to climate change of the Department of Homeland 
                   Security, 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. PROHIBITION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE PROFESSIONALS PROGRAM 
              AND ANY OTHER PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR ACTIVITY RELATING TO 
              CLIMATE CHANGE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security may not obligate or expend any 
funds--
            (1) to carry out the Climate Change Professionals Program 
        of the Department of Homeland Security;
            (2) to establish or maintain a program to train individuals 
        relating to climate change; or
            (3) for any program, project, or activity relating to 
        climate change.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert L. ACREE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA et al., Defendants-Appellees, Ann Gunter Drummond et al., Intervenors.

No. 75-3617.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 27, 1976.

*132John H. Ruffin, Jr., Augusta, Ga., Jack Greenberg, Drew S. Days, III, James M. Nabrit, III, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York City, for plaintiff s-appellants.

Leonard 0. Fletcher, Jr., Augusta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Despite an unpromising earlier history,1 the dismantling of the dual school system in Richmond County, Georgia, proceeds, and the public schools there appear at present to function in a generally constitutional manner under the continuing surveillance of the district court. The present appeal is from an order approving attendance changes proposed by the school authorities in order, it is said, to avoid overcrowding and to eliminate double sessions in certain school plants.

In the order appealed from, the district court specifically found

> that the proposed attendance changes are educationally sound and are feasible. They are required in order to avoid overcrowding in the elementary and secondary schools affected by the recommendations and to eliminate double sessions at Windsor Springs Road and Barton Chapel Road Elementary Schools.

> No discriminatory purpose or result is involved in the proposed changes and transfers. Neither in intent nor effect do the Board’s proposals discriminate racially-

The above amounts to a finding of good faith and is not seriously disputed by appellants; indeed, the record appears to indicate that this was not an issue below.

The effect of the changes approved is not to alter significantly existing racial ratios in the schools in question, and these are, if not all that might be desired, tolerable at the present time. We have carefully considered appellants’ complaints — relating to the rather high (62%) ratio of black students in one school and the selection of two receiving schools, rather than one preferred by appellants, for bussed students — and we are unable to conclude that the proposals approved by the court below are outside the appropriate range of its discretion or are not properly supported by reason and evidence. The other complaint refers to the scope and timing of hearings before that court, matters peculiarly within its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Detailed in *Acree*v. *(Drummond) County Board of Education,*336 F.Supp. 1275 (S.D.Ga.1972).
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000025 26-AUG-2016 01:14 PM
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,813-01

EX P ARTE DERICK MANUEL P ALMER, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 14-10-11912-C R (1) INTHE 9th DISTRICT COURT

F ROM MONTG OMERY COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substanc e with i ntent to deliver and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that hi s p lea was involuntary beca use, due to a misrepre sentation contained in the arr esting office rs’s repor t, all the parties operated under an incorre ct belief as to the fac ts surroundingthis offense.2

Ba sed on the facts of this case , the trial court, in agree ment with the S tate, has deter mined that Applicant’s plea was involuntary
. Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex parte Huerta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 14-10-11912- CR in the 9th District Court of Montgome ry County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to th e cu s t o dy of the Sheriff of Montgome ry

County to answer

the cha rg es as set out in the indictment. The trial cour t shall issue any nece ssary

bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copi e s o f th is o p in io n s h a ll be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: Octobe r 28, 2015 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Polaroid
Corporation's Form 10-Q for the six  months ended June 27, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          68,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  464,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (26,100)
<INVENTORY>                                    466,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,198,600
<PP&E>                                       2,017,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,423,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,061,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          780,100
<BONDS>                                        572,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     271,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,061,800
<SALES>                                        865,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               865,800
<CGS>                                          518,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  831,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  ( 8,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (   .36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (   .36)


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1663

_____________________________

G.P., Father of L.P., A Minor 

Child,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Jonathan Sjostrom, Judge.

October 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Ronald Newlin, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children's Legal Services, Tallahassee; 

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha 

C. Valley, Senior Attorney, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 20, 2010

d1013 

# Order

October 20, 2010

140643

BLOOMFIELD FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140643 COA: 294666 Wayne CC: 03-312843-AV LeROI R. HASKINS, Defendant-Appellee,

and

GABE KAIMOWITZ, a/k/a HILLEL GABRIEL KAIMOWITZ, Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 25, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Mildred McC. Nones et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Security Title and Guaranty Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

November 19, 1956.

*David Simon*for plaintiffs.

*Sidney Schutz*for Joseph J. Shebar, defendant.

*1058Marcus G. Christ, J.

This is an action against an attorney. The complaint alleges damages by reason of the attorney’s perjured testimony before an Official Referee and asks for treble damages under section 273 of the Penal Law. An attorney, who with intention to deceive the court, testifies falsely to a material fact or issue in a judicial proceeding is guilty of deceit under section 273 of the Penal Law. The civil remedy there provided may be invoked if there is damage. One other than an attorney may not be held in an action for deceit on account of perjured testimony given *(Young*v. *Leach,*27 App. Div. 293; *Anchor Wire Corp.*v. *Borst,*277 App. Div. 728; *Burbrooke Mfg. Co.*v. *St. George Textile Corp.,*283 App. Div. 640).

However, the statute puts a special civil remedy in the hands of one wronged by an attorney. Damages are alleged. But it is asserted they may not be susceptible of proof. With that the court cannot be concerned on a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Motion denied.

Submit order.
Presidential Documents

50699 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 168 

Thursday, August 28, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8280 of August 25, 2008 

Minority Enterprise Development Week, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

The opportunities of America make our land a beacon of hope for people 

from every corner of the world. America’s minority-owned businesses contribute greatly to our economy and the richness of our country. During 

Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recognize minority entrepreneurs 

and recommit ourselves to fostering an environment where everyone can 

attain the American dream. 

In America, people’s dreams matter more than their background. Across 

our country, minority business owners are working hard to achieve their 

goals and helping to extend the promises of America to their fellow citizens. 

These businesses and their employees are vital contributors to our national 

prosperity. 

My Administration has lowered taxes, supported pro-growth policies, and 

enacted an economic stimulus package to encourage small and mediumsized business growth. By keeping more money in the hands of families 

and small businesses, they can save, invest, spend, and give back to their 

communities. Our economy is resilient and dynamic because Americans 

are the most industrious, creative, and enterprising people in the world 

and because we believe in a free market economy that rewards those qualities. 

During Minority Enterprise Development Week, we recognize the value minority entrepreneurs and their employees add to our country. They are 

vital to our Nation’s economic strength and an essential part of our national 

heritage. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim August 31 through September 6, 2008, as Minority Enterprise Development Week. I call upon 

all Americans to celebrate this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, 

and activities to recognize the many contributions of our Nation’s minority 

enterprises. 


rmajette on PROD1PC71 with RULES
50700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 168 / Thursday, August 28, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fifth 

day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtythird. 

[FR Doc. E8–20195 

Filed 8–27–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC71 with RULESGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0756-10

JAMES RAY BARROW, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON REHEARING OF APPELLANT’S 

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

SWISHER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to confinement for ten

years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Barrow v. State, No. 07-08-00298-

CR (Tex. App. — Amarillo, delivered May 28, 2010). Appellant’s petition for

discretionary review was dismissed as untimely filed on November 3, 2010. Appellant

has filed a motion for rehearing requesting reinstatement of his petition so that it will be

considered by this Court. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. His petition filed
Barrow - 2

on October 25, 2010, is reinstated as of January 12, 2011, and will be considered in

accord with Tex.R.App.P. 68. 

Delivered: January 12, 2011

Do not publish
**Exhibit 10.13****Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc.*****Summary of Director Compensation***     Non-employee directors receive an annual fee of $20,000. In addition, the chairman of eachcommittee receives the following annual fee: Audit Committee—$15,000, CompensationCommittee—$5,000, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee—$5,000. Non-employeedirectors receive a fee of $1,500 for each board or committee meeting attended in person and a feeof $1,000 for attendance at a board or committee meeting held telephonically. Annual grants ofoptions or other incentive awards are determined by the Board of Directors each year. Ournon-employee directors other than Mr. McGonagle received a grant of 2,000 shares of restrictedstock as compensation for their service in 2007. These shares of restricted stock will vest on thefirst anniversary of the date of grant. In connection with his appointment to the Board ofDirectors, Mr. McGonagle was granted 4,500 shares of restricted stock effective August 22, 2007.Mr. McGonagle’s shares will vest 33%, 33% and 34% on the first, second and third anniversaries ofthe date of grant, respectively.     Employee directors do not receive compensation for service on the Board ofDirectors. Pursuant to our Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement, dated February 16, 2006,all directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetingsof the board or committees and for other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with service onthe board and any committees. Each director will be fully indemnified by us for actions associatedwith being a member of the board to the extent permitted under Delaware law as provided in ourSecond Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, our Amended and Restated Bylaws and theIndemnification Agreements by and between us and each of our directors.