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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6992 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6992

  To designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2022

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Countering Russian Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION AS STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of State shall designate Russia as a country the 
government of which has repeatedly provided support for international 
terrorism pursuant to--
            (1) section 1754(c)(1)(A) of the Export Control Reform Act 
        of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4318(c)(1)(A));
            (2) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
        U.S.C. 2371);
            (3) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
        2780); and
            (4) any other applicable provision of law.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that the President should immediately 
break off all diplomatic ties with the Russian Federation.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Scott McDaniel

v. Civil No. 04-cv-311-PB

Skillsoft Corporation

O R D E R

 Despite a failure to comply with either LR 7.1(a)(2) or

37.1(a), defendant seeks to compel signed authorizations for

records of: (1) high school education; (2) mental health

counseling; (3) medical treatment; (4) pharmaceuticals dispensed;

(5) hospitalization; (6) dental treatment; and (7) criminal

convictions. The inadequacy of the motion is somewhat

ameliorated by the Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Objection. 

1. Education, pharmacy, dental and criminal records. 

a. Education 

The relevance of high school records of a 35 year-old with a

GED diploma is not established by defendant’s barebone claim that

they are “pertinent to his earning capacity.” Denied. 

b. Pharmacy

The records filed under seal by defendant reflect that

plaintiff had a Zoloft prescription. The records of physicians

and mental health professional already produced, of necessity,

Case 1:04-cv-00311-PB Document 16 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 3
2

reflect prescriptions. In fact, it does not appear that a Rule

34 request seeking pharmacy records has even been made. Denied. 

c. Dental

A claim for damages due to a loss of dental insurance was

made in the answer to interrogatory 19 (Exhibit B under seal). 

However, plaintiff’s objection disavows such a claim. Plaintiff

is ordered to provide copies of any dental bills which he claims

as damages. 

d. Criminal

Plaintiff has denied any criminal record. Defendant

persists in seeking an authorization without any showing of

relevance or basis for believing that such records exist. 

Denied. 

2. Mental Health, Physician and Hospital Records. 

Plaintiff has a claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress and, it is clear, it is not of the garden

variety. Defendant is entitled to discovery sufficient to

evaluate and defend the claim. 

Defendant’s Request nos. 7 and 8 are excessively broad as

they are not limited in time nor, in view of the production to

date, the plaintiff’s deposition and Dr. Drukenis’ extensive

Case 1:04-cv-00311-PB Document 16 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 3
3

examination, has there been any showing that more is necessary. 

The disclosure of childhood abuse, depression bouts, mental

health and medical records are more than enough for counsel or

their expert to address the claim. Beyond what has been provided

and what has been promised it appears defendant is over-reaching

on overly broad requests. Denied. 

Plaintiff is to be paid his reasonable attorney’s fees in

opposing this motion unless defendant shows cause why not within

ten (10) days. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 29, 2005

cc: Mary Notaris, Esq.

 Elizabeth A. Bailey, Esq.

 Christopher Cole, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00311-PB Document 16 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 3
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 712 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to enter 

into appropriate arrangements with the National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine to provide for a report on the health impacts 

of air traffic noise and pollution, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2021 

Mr. LYNCH (for himself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. QUIGLEY, and Mr. SUOZZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to enter into appropriate arrangements with the 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide for a report on the health impacts of 

air traffic noise and pollution, 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 ‘‘Air Traffic Noise and 

5 Pollution Expert Consensus Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 712 IH

1 SEC. 2. HEALTH IMPACTS OF AIR TRAFFIC NOISE AND POL2 LUTION. 

3 (a) STUDY.—The Administrator of the Federal Avia4 tion Administration shall enter into appropriate arrange5 ments with the Health and Medicine Division of the Na6 tional Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

7 under which the Division will— 

8 (1) not later than 30 days after the date of en9 actment of this Act, convene a committee of experts 

10 in health and environmental science to examine the 

11 various health impacts of air traffic noise and pollu12 tion; and 

13 (2) issue a corresponding expert consensus re14 port that sets forth current scientific knowledge re15 lating to the various health impacts of air traffic 

16 noise and pollution. 

17 (b) REPORT.—Upon completion of the consensus re18 port, the Division shall transmit the report to— 

19 (1) the Administrator; 

20 (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv21 ices; 

22 (3) the Administrator of the Environmental 

23 Protection Agency; 

24 (4) the Committee on Transportation and In25 frastructure and the Committee on Oversight and 

26 Reform of the House of Representatives; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 712 IH

1 (5) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

2 Transportation and the Committee on Homeland Se3 curity and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1759

___________

Anthony C. Kenney, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Harbor Distributing Company; Nick * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Pierce, Director, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 30, 2001

 Filed: September 5, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Kenney appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of one defendant, and its

grant of summary judgment to the other defendant, in his race discrimination lawsuit.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we

conclude that the district court’s rulings were correct. See Ring v. First Interstate
-2-

Mortgage, Inc., 984 F.2d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Center-W. Campus, 160 F.3d

484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for grant of summary judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Change-in-Control and Involuntary Severance Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
  
 February 16, 2005 
  

Mr. Ray C. Dillon 
 103 Challain 
 Little Rock, AR 72223 
  
 Dear Ray: 
  
 Pursuant to a decision by the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors of Deltic Timber Corporation, attached is the basis of remuneration and other items should our company experience a Change-in-Control* or should you be terminated without cause. 
  
 I am pleased the Committee agreed to extend these potential benefits to you.

  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 R. Madison Murphy

	 Chairman, Executive Compensation
 Committee of the Board of Directors
 of Deltic Timber Corporation



  


	*	Change-in-control shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Deltic Timber Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. 








 A Change-in –Control (CIC) Agreement with a “double trigger” where in the event a change in control occurs
and the President and CEO is dismissed within two years without cause or suffer (i) a reduction in salary and potential bonus and/or (ii) a meaningful diminution in job responsibility as a consequence of such a change, he would receive the
following: 
  

	 	a)	Two years base salary and target bonus 

  

	 	b)	Two years of health and welfare benefits 

  

	 	c)	Accelerated vesting of all stock options and restricted stock 

  

	 	d)	Comprehensive executive outplacement services 

  

	 	e)	Should any of these actions attract excise tax, they would be grossed up 

  

	 	f)	Any cash payments will be paid in one payment as soon as practicable following the event 

  
 An Involuntary Severance Agreement for the President and CEO where in the event of an involuntary termination of the President and CEO
occurs without cause, he would receive the following: 
  

	 	a)	Two years base salary and target bonus 

  

	 	b)	Two years of health and welfare benefits 

  

	 	c)	Accelerated vesting of all stock options and restricted stock 

  

	 	d)	Comprehensive executive outplacement services 

  

	 	e)	Should any of these actions attract excise tax, they would be grossed up 

  

	 	f)	Any cash payments will be paid in one payment as soon as practicable following the event
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00841-CV

PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC,

Appellant

v.

Norma 

Norma GUTIERREZ,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CV-000054-D1

The Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 19, 2014

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that they have reached 

a settlement in the underlying cause. The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC, 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
**** 

**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

** **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

** **

** **

** **

I, Joseph A. Venezia,do hereby certify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certifyon behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Exchange Note ServicingSupplement 2018-B to Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 19, 2018 (the “Exchange Note Servicing Supplement”),among AL Holding Corp., as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)                 A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on Form10-K and covered by the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange NoteServicing Supplement) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceunder the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note ServicingSupplement), has been made under my supervision.

 

(ii)               To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntoset my hand as of March 6, 2020

 

 

WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.

 

 

By:  /s/Joseph Venezia                          

        Name: Joseph Venezia 			

        Title:Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52852-52853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13276-000]


Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Preliminary 
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions 
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 4, 2008.
    On August 11, 2008 and supplemented on August 12, 2008, Natural 
Currents Energy Services, LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 
4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of 
the Cuttyhunk/Elizabeth Islands Tidal Energy Project, located in the 
Atlantic Ocean and Canapitsit Channel in Dukes County, Massachusetts. 
The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 4 Tidal In-Stream Energy 
Conversion (TISEC) generating units, with a total installed capacity of 
100-kilowatts, (2) underwater cable with a length between 250 meters to 
2.5 kilometers for site 1, and up to 10 kilometers in length for site 
2, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an 
annual generation of 350,000 kilowatt-hours, which would be sold to 
Cuttyhunk Island.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Roger Bason, Natural Currents Energy 
Services, LLC, 24 Roxanne Boulevard, Highland, New York 12561, phone 
(845) 691-4008.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Houff (202) 502-6393.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13276) in

[[Page 52853]]

the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call 
toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21064 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

__________________ 

NO. 09-22-00133-CV 

__________________ 

IN RE AMANDA BARLOW HENCKEL 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Original Proceeding 

279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas 

Trial Cause No. F-219,234-B 

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Amanda Barlow Henckel filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion 

for temporary relief from an order requiring a third party to produce health care 

records for in camera inspection in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. At 

this time, the trial court has only ordered production to the trial court for in camera 

inspection so that the trial court can determine whether any of the records are 

relevant to the disputed issues in the case, not otherwise protected under applicable 

law, and should be produced to the opposing party. Relator has not shown that the 

trial court abused its discretion by ordering the records to be produced for in camera 

inspection. See In re Adams, No. 09-06-416-CV, 2006 WL 2789081, at *2 (Tex. 
2 

App.—Beaumont Sept. 26, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We deny the petition 

for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief without prejudice in the 

event the trial court orders production or disclosure of records to the opposing party. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 

 PETITION DENIED. 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on April 28, 2022 

Opinion Delivered April 28, 2022 

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7096

ERNEST L. BELL, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Ernest L. Bell , of Lake Charles, Louisiana, pro se.

Scott A. MacGriff , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Brian M. Simkin , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Christa A. Childers , Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United St ates Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Chief Judge William P. Greene, Jr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7096 ERNEST L. BELL, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the Unit ed States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 07-1398, Chief Judge William P. Greene, Jr.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: November 4, 2009

__________________________

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Ernest L. Bell appeals the judgment of the United Stat es Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims that he aba ndoned his claim for an earlier effective date for his total disability based upon individ ual unemployability rating. Bell v. Shinseki , No. 07-1398 (Ct. Vet. App. Jan. 30, 2009). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Our authority to review a decision of t he Veterans Court is limited. We may review such a decision only to the extent that it pertains to the validity of “a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any in terpretation thereof (ot her than a determination2009-7096 2 as to a factual matter),” or “to interpret co nstitutional and statutor y provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), 7292(c). Absent a constitutional issue, we do not otherwise have jurisdiction to review either “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id . § 7292(d)(2).

Bell does not assert that the Veterans C ourt misinterpreted a st atute or regulation or that his case presents constitutional issues. Rather, he challenges the court’s application of the jurisprudential rule of abandonment to the facts in his case. We lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge. See Andre v. Principi , 301 F.3d 1354, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael DeAngelis

v. Civil No. 04-cv-456-SM

Hillsborough County Department of

Corrections, Superintendent, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and TRO to require

New Hampshire State Prison staff to let him access his legal work

and materials so he may file his objection to the pending motion

for summary judgment. This suit is against Hillsborough County

House of Corrections. There are no state prison staff who are

defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) provides in pertinent part that: 

 Every order granting an injunction and every

restraining order . . . is binding only upon

the parties to the action, their officers,

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,

and upon those persons in active concert or

participation with them who receive actual

notice of the order by personal service or

otherwise. 

The Hillsborough County House of Corrections has no control over

state prison employees and the latter are not parties. The court

lacks jurisdiction over unspecified, non-parties to restrain or

enjoin them. I recommend that the motion be denied. 

Case 1:04-cv-00456-SM Document 141 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 11, 2007

cc: John A. Curran, Esq.

 Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

 Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq.

 Michael DeAngelis, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00456-SM Document 141 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 2
- 796 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

296 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. SCHIESSER

Cite as 296 Neb. 796

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Michael R. Schiesser, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 2, 2017. No. S-16-115.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Inbody, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges, on appeal thereto from 

the District Court for Lancaster County, Lori A. Maret, Judge. 

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.

John S. Berry, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Melissa R. Vincent, 

and, on brief, George R. Love for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, 

Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the briefs and record and having heard 

oral arguments, we conclude on further review that the decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals in State v. Schiesser, 24 

Neb. App. 407, 888 N.W.2d 736 (2016), is correct, and accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which 

affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Affirmed.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/14/2017 09:11 AM CDT