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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______

                     HON. DOUGLAS ``PETE'' PETERSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, during the week of May 9, I was 
called back to my district due to an illness in my family. As a result, 
I missed a number of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have 
voted as follows; rollcall 308--Traficant amendment: ``no''; rollcall 
309--Passage: ``yes''; rollcall 310--Procedural motion: ``yes''; 
rollcall 311--Rule: ``yes''; rollcall 312--Saxton-Boehlert substitute: 
``yes''; rollcall 313--Mineta amendment: ``no''; rollcall 314--Boehlert 
amendment: ``yes''; rollcall 315--Pallone amendment: ``no''; rollcall 
316--Mineta amendment: ``no''; rollcall 317--Pallone amendment: ``no''; 
rollcall 318--Mineta amendment: ``no''; rollcall 319--Collins 
amendment: ``yes''; rollcall 320--Mineta amendment: ``no''; rollcall 
321--DeFazio amendment: ``no''; rollcall 322--Nadler amendment: ``no''; 
rollcall 323--Oberstar amendment: ``no''; rollcall 324--Pallone 
amendment: ``no''; rollcall 325--Visclosky amendment: ``no''; rollcall 
326--Laughlin amendment to Emerson amendment: ``yes''; rollcall 327--
Batement amendment to Lipinski amendment: ``no''; rollcall 328--
Lipinski amendment: ``yes''; rollcall 329--Largent amendment: ``no''; 
rollcall 330--Passage: ``no''; rollcall 331--Armey motion: ``no.''

                          ____________________
```
#### John T. Henry v. M. M. Moore and J. N. Johnson.

(No. 771, Op. Book No. 2, p. 21.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 880. *Judgment for specific property; enforcement and satisfaction of.*In an action of detinue, where the judgment is for the plaintiff for the property sued for or its value, the plaintiff is entitled to have the specific property, if it can be found, and the judgment cannot be satisfied in the first instance by the payment of the *505adjudged value of such property. The alternative judgment is for the benefit of the plaintiff and not of the defendant. [Lockridge v. Baldwin, 20 Tex. 307; Sayles’ Prac. 754; Avery v. Avery, 12 Tex. 58; Freeman on Ex. 468.] The very object of resorting to the action of detinue *is*to recover the specific property if to be had. [Joram v. Thomas, 34 Miss. 76.]

May 6, 1880.

§ 881. *Specific relief.*Our courts have authority to grant specific relief according to the facts of each individual case.

§ 882. *Execution; definition of.*A writ of execution is the embodied power of the court in the shape of a command to a ministerial officer respecting the rights of the parties to the judgment. [Lockridge v. Baldwin, 20 Tex. 307.]

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5086-H5087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              PROPOSED CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TITLE

  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues have proposed 
drastic cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Over the next 7 
years, their budget would cut them by over $465 billion. At the same 
time, their budget proposes a tax break for the people that are earning 
over $250,000 and will cost more than $340 billion over the same 
period.
  I have spoken to several people in my district who would be affected 
by these changes. The comment of one older gentleman struck me as 
particularly on target. He told me that he understood that the Medicare 
system is broken and needs to be fixed. All seniors ask of the 
Congress, he said, is that we make changes in a considered and rational 
way that will actually help to save the system.
  Yes, we must slow the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending. And 
yes, we must absolutely ensure the solvency of the Medicare Part A 
Trust Fund. America's seniors are willing to contribute their fair 
share to this effort.
  However, we must not balance the budget on the backs of senior 
Americans. Nor should we ask our senior citizens to endure these cuts 
while we use the savings to pay for proposed tax [[Page H5087]] breaks. 
As we repair the Medicare program, and attempt to slow its growth, we 
must do so in the broader context of health care reform to ensure that 
older Americans--and indeed all Americans--have access to quality, 
affordable health care.

                          ____________________
```
#### Hensley Bro. & Co. v. Bagdad Sash Factory Co.

(No. *482, Tex. L. J., vol. 2,*p. 470.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 718. *Evidence; objection to, where trial is before the court without jury.*In trials of fact without the aid of a jury, the question of admissibility of evidence, strictly speaking, can seldom be raised, since whatever be the ground of objection, the evidence objected to must of necessity be read or heard by the judge in order to determine its character and value. In such cases, the only question in effect is the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. [1 Green! Ev. § 49.] And on appeal, a judgment would not be reversible on this ground — of the admission of such testimony.

§ 719. *Partnership; power of member to bind the firm after a dissolution.*After dissolution of the partnership, the power of the members to bind the firm ceases, and. an acknowledgment of a debt will not of itself be sufficient, inasmuch as that would, in effect, be keeping the-firm in life and activity. To give an acknowledgment. *393any force, the existence of the partnership must be proved or admitted aliunde, and then the confession of a partner after dissolution is admissible as to a demand not barred by the statute of limitations. [3 Kent, 50.] Whether one partner has power to bind the firm by his acknowledgment, after the dissolution of the partnership, of an antecedent indebtedness, has been an unsettled and much disputed question. But there is certainly a great weight of authority in America in support of the negative of the question. [Speake v. White, 14 Tex. 364. ] See Alexander v. Lewis, 47 Tex. 481, for a case in many respects similar to the one before us.

January 15, 1879.

§ 720. *Judgment on a partnership debt; incomplete judgment.*A judgment against a partnership should restrict the recovery to the partnership effects. A more formidable objection to the judgment is that it does not dispose of the case in any manner, so far as the estate of the deceased member is concerned, nor was there any dismissal as to his representative. The judgment is defective and incomplete, and may be onerous as to the other defendants, unless the liability of the deceased member’s estate had been determined.

Reversed and remanded.
[No. 17858-7-III.

Division Three.

May 9, 2000.]

#### Samuel B. Henrichs, et al., *Respondents,*v. T.D. Service Company, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 97-2-03939-2, Salvatore F. Cozza, J., entered September 3, 1998. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J.; Brown, J., dissenting.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1930-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1930-DR), dated July 29, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 9, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 29, 2010.

Henry County for Public Assistance. The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-23331 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23362]



[[Page 57269]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EG10-40-000; EG10-41-000; EG10-42-000; EG10-43-000; EG10-44-000; EG10-
45-000; EG10-46-000; EG10-47-000; EG10-49-000; EG10-50-000]


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

September 13, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taloga Wind, LLC..........................  Docket Nos. EG10-40-000
Stephentown Regulation Services, LLC......   EG10-41-000
Longview Power, LLC.......................  EG10-42-000
Alta Wind I, LLC..........................  EG10-43-000
Alta Wind II, LLC.........................  EG10-44-000
Alta Wind III, LLC........................  EG10-45-000
Alta Wind IV, LLC.........................  EG10-46-000
Alta Wind V, LLC..........................  EG10-47-000
Synergics Roth Rock Wind Energy, LLC......  EG10-49-000
Synergics Roth Rock North Wind Energy, LLC   EG10-50-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of August 2010, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23362 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                          23,987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,509,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   252,129
<INVENTORY>                                 12,681,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,578,245
<PP&E>                                      27,066,757
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,270,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,056,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,177,079
<BONDS>                                     24,371,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,654
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,597,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,056,638
<SALES>                                     37,495,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,495,437
<CGS>                                       30,360,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,988,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                93,753
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,190,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,365,280
<INCOME-TAX>                                   763,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,602,280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,602,280
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Defense Department provides warning to military services regarding poppy seed consumption and military drug testingPublished Feb. 22, 2023
                        
                        
                        DoD News
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of Defense recently issued a memorandum on Warning Regarding Poppy Seed Consumption and Military Drug Testing. 
Recent data suggests that certain poppy seed varieties may have higher codeine contamination that previously reported. The memorandum warns service members that the consumption of poppy seed products could result in a codeine positive urinalysis result.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Department is encouraging all service members to avoid the consumption of poppy seeds in all forms to include food products and baked goods. As more information becomes available, the Department will revise the policy accordingly.
 
The Warning Regarding Poppy Seed Consumption and Military Drug Testing memorandum can be found **here**.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



DOD 



Defense Department 



warning 



drug testing 



poppy seed 



codeine 



contamination 



urinalysis 



DDRP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

MARIA V. GO 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 107 DB 2016 (No. 65 RST 2016) 

Attorney Registration No. 92715 

(Philadelphia) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2016, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated August 25, 2016, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Maria V. Go, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
#### A. Campbell, Trustee, etc., v. John P. Cox, Sheriff, etc.

(No. 331, Op. Book No. 1, p. 532.)

Appeal from Hill County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 526. *Independent executor; inventory not conclusive.*Appellant was executor of his deceased wife’s will. The will devised the testator’s property to her daughter, to be held, controlled and managed by appellant during his *263life, but the property or its value was to be accounted, for to the daughter by the legal representatives of appellant at his death. No other action was to be had with reference to the estate than the probate of the will and the return of an inventory of the property. Appellant took possession of the property under the will, but returned no inventory of the same. Appellee, as sheriff, by virtue of an execution against appellant, levied upon a portion of this property and sold the same, though, notified by appellant at the time of the levy and sale that the property belonged to his daughter, and that he held the same as trustee for her. Appellant, as trustee, brought this suit to recover the value of the property, and in the court below judgment was rendered that he take nothing and pay costs. The court charged the jury as follows: “If you find that no inventory was returned (as the will requires should be done), then you will find for the defendant, John P. Cox, sheriff.” Held, this charge was erroneous. An inventory is not conclusive either for or against an executor or administrator. [Pas. Dig. 1302; White v. Sheppard, 16 Tex. 167.] When filed it is only *prima facie*evidence. [Littell v. Birdwell, 21 Tex. 607.] And it is not conclusive to show that the property as therein specified is separate or community, but proof of its *status*may be made *aliunde.*[Carroll v. Carroll, 20 Tex. 745; Bradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 27.] When there has been long continued action of an executor, in the obvious capacity of an independent executor, after failure to return an inventory of the estate as required by law, and neither the court having jurisdiction nor the creditors interested have required a compliance with the statute, those who have in good faith acquired property of the estate through the action of the executor as such, will not be permitted to suffer on account of the failure to file an inventory. [Willis v. Ferguson, 46 Tex. 496.]

October 16, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JESSICA R. HAND

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2984

[ June 21, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; James W. McCann , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 2010CF000362A and 2017CF000871A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson,

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L E VINE and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### THOMAS WATSON v. C. M. PADGETT AND ANOTHER (3 CASES). GUS SWARTZ v. SAME. T. P. SHELDON v. SAME. (9 CASES) FLOYD FLEX v. SAME.1 G. W. LIND, APPELLANT IN EACH CASE. 2

November 14, 1919.

Nos. 21,406, 21,407, 21,408, 21,414, 21,416, 21,417, 21,418, 21,419, 21,420, 21,421, 21,424, 21,425, 21,426.

November 28, 1919.

No. 21,427.

*463Case followed.

Action in the district court for Koochiching county to foreclose mechanic’s liens upon certain logs and timber products. The case was tried before McClenahan, J., who made findings, ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, declared the judgments to be specific liens upon the logs and timber, and ordered the property be sold to satisfy the Hens. From the judgments entered pursuhnt to the order for judgment, defendant G. W. Kind appealed.

Affirmed.

*8. H. Eckman,*for appellant.

*J. H. Brown,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 174 N. *W.*829.

Pee Curiam.

These are cases referred to in Sheldon v. Padgett, supra, page 141, 174 N. W. 827. The same proceedings were had and substantially the same facts found, except that the names and amounts were different, and in the Sheldon case there were full formal assignments of the claims attached to the statement filed in the office of the surveyor general and the original indorsed time checks were attached to the statement filed in the clerk's office, and in the 'Swartz case plaintiff was the original holder of the time check and there was no assignment. We hold, following conclusions reached in that case, that the judgment herein appealed from should be sustained.

Affirmed.

Brown, C. J., took no part in these cases.
#### JOHN CAULFIELD v. GARY HILTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF TRENTON STATE PRISON.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2732 

To increase from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 the threshold figure 

at which regulated depository institutions are subject to direct examination and reporting requirements of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. DONNELLY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase from $10,000,000,000 to $50,000,000,000 the 

threshold figure at which regulated depository institutions are subject to direct examination and reporting 

requirements of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 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 ‘‘Consumer Financial 

5 Protection Bureau Examination and Reporting Threshold 

6 Act of 2014’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2732 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN THE EXAMINATION THRESHOLD. 

2 Section 1025(a) of the Consumer Financial Protec3 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5515(a)) is amended by strik4 ing ‘‘$10,000,000,000’’ each place that term appears and 

5 inserting ‘‘$50,000,000,000’’. 

6 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN THE REPORTING THRESHOLD. 

7 Section 1026(a) of the Consumer Financial Protec8 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5516(a)) is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘$10,000,000,000’’ each place that term appears and 

10 inserting ‘‘$50,000,000,000’’. 

11 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

12 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

13 take effect on the date that is 45 days after the date of 

14 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS