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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1260

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                                Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLAUDE RAMSEY POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Claude Ramsey 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 ``Claude 
Ramsey Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force makes final basing decision for next two Air National Guard F-35A basesPublished April 15, 2020
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force selected Truax Field, Wisconsin, and Dannelly Field, Alabama, for the next twoAir National Guard **F-35A Lightning II** locations.

F-35As will begin to replace many of the older fourth-generation aircraft, but the Air Force will continue to fly a mix of fifth and fourth-generation fighters into the 2040s. This will allow the Air Force to maintain enough fighters to meet combatant commander requirements, provide required training, and allow a reasonable and uninterrupted deployment tempo for the force.

“The Department of the Air Force selected the115th Fighter Wing and the 187th Fighter Wing as the next Air National Guard locations to receive the F-35A,” said Secretary of the Air Force Barbara M. Barrett. “Putting F-35s at these two bases continues our transition into the next generation of air superiority.”

Before finalizing the basing decisions, the Air Force completed the required environmental analysis, which began in early 2018.

The Air Force expects the F-35As to begin arriving at Truax and Dannelly Fields in 2023.

Currently, three active duty operational locations—Hill Air Force Base, Utah; RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom; andEielson AFB, Alaska, one other Air National Guard location, Burlington Air Guard Station, Vermont.

One Air Force Reserve location,Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas, has been selected to host F-35A aircraft, pending the results of an environmental study.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



SAF 



SecAF 



Secretary of the Air Force 



basing 



decision 



Air National Guard 



ANG 



F-35A 



Lightning II 



Truax Field 



Dannelly Field 



115th Fighter Wing 



187th Fighter Wing 



Barbara Barrett 



Hill AFB 



RAF Lakenheath 



Eielson AFB 



Burlington Air Guard Station Related Links
        F-35A Lightning II
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1168 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to extend the firearm 

and ammunition prohibitions applicable to convicted felons to those convicted in a foreign court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 

extend the firearm and ammunition prohibitions applicable to convicted felons to those convicted in a foreign 

court. 

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 ‘‘Foreign Felon Gun 

5 Prohibition Act of 2007’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1168 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION PROHI2 BITIONS APPLICABLE TO CONVICTED FEL3 ONS TO THOSE CONVICTED IN A FOREIGN 

4 COURT. 

5 Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ‘‘, includ8 ing any foreign court,’’ after ‘‘court’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ‘‘court of,’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘court, including any foreign court, 

11 of’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
January 27 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT PRIMO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00794

- CV V.

SCOTT ROTHENBERG , Appellee

______ __________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Scott Rothenberg, signed June 10 , 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment in part with respect to the trial court’s gra nt of

a no

- evidence summary judgment as reflected in the May 13, 2013 summary judgment order. We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment in part with respect to the trial court’s imposition of death penalty sanctions as reflected in the May 22, 2013 order. We REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s opinion. We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
583 A.2d 298

#### JOHN BURGO, JR., ETC. v. LARRY W. COHEN, D.O.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
579 A.2d 816

#### IN THE MATTER OF DONALD G. HOWARD, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 27, 1990.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the motion for a stay of the effective date of respondent’s disbarment is denied; and it is further

*247ORDERED that respondent shall have thirty days from the filing date of this. Order to have counsel make additional filings in respect of his motions for reconsideration and to supplement the record. An original and eight copies are to be served and filed with the Clerk of this Court. Two copies shall be served and filed on the Office of Attorney Ethics.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

VINCENT HARRISON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-759 

September 17, 2021 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit 

Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

Vincent Harrison, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
News United States Air Force
 AF narrows locations considered for basing new RPA unitsPublished Sept. 8, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force has selected candidate bases for a potential new MQ-9 Reaper wing with units at up to two locations.      For the first location, the Air Force identified Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona; Moody AFB, Georgia; Mountain Home AFB, Idaho; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Shaw AFB, South Carolina, as candidate bases to potentially host an operations group with mission control elements. These locations currently have an active-duty flying wing or group that performs at least one core remotely piloted aircraft mission and/or is co-located with an active-duty distributed ground system. Once an installation is selected, MQ-9 crews will control the MQ-9 from that location, but no aircraft will be assigned to these units.  The Air Force also selected Eglin AFB, Florida; Tyndall AFB, Florida; Vandenberg AFB, California, and Shaw AFB as candidates for the second location, which would potentially host a full MQ-9 wing, to include both a launch and recovery element and a mission control element, as well as a maintenance group and operations support personnel. That location is expected to have up to 24 MQ-9 aircraft assigned. The Air Force is pursuing additional basing locations to help diversify assignment opportunities for personnel within the MQ-9 enterprise, provide increased opportunities for leadership from within the community, and provide flexibility to enhance integration with other organizations and capabilities. The desire for additional locations for an MQ-9 wing was identified during surveys of officers and enlisted Airmen in the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 enterprise as part of Air Combat Command’s Culture and Process Improvement Program. “We are using the strategic basing process to determine the best locations for hosting additional locations for the MQ-9 mission,” said Jennifer L. Miller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations. “As we go through the basing process, we will use the information we collect to help us determine the affordability and potential locations for expanding the MQ-9 enterprise.”  ACC will now conduct site surveys at all eight locations. Site survey teams will assess each location against requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, infrastructure and manpower. They will also develop cost estimates to bed down the planned units.    Based on the results of these efforts, the Air Force plans to select the preferred alternatives as early as the winter of 2016. Final basing decisions will be made by the secretary of the Air Force after the requisite environmental analysis is complete.MQ-9 



MQ-1 



RPA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHOICETEL
COMMUNICATIONS INC AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1998 AND 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,818
<PP&E>                                           8,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,243)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,757
<SALES>                                          9,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,344
<CGS>                                            4,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    210
<INCOME-TAX>                                        95
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       115
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET (UNAUDITED) AS OF 3/31/97 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS 
(UNAUDITED) FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/97 & 3/31/96.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                      <C>               <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1997      JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997      MAR-31-1996 
<CASH>                                           1,336                0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,000                0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,336                0
<PP&E>                                          28,417                0  
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,277                0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,476                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          200,770                0
<BONDS>                                              0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0                0 
<COMMON>                                        82,962                0 
<OTHER-SE>                                    (257,256)               0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,476                0 
<SALES>                                              0                0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                0 
<CGS>                                                0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               699,662        1,419,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (699,662)      (1,419,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                0
<CHANGES>                                            0                0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (699,662)        (699,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.009)           (.025)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.009)           (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Milton Padilla, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle A. Armstrong, J. at plea; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at sentencing), rendered August 23, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Michelle A. Armstrong, J. at plea; Robert M. Mandelbaum, J. at sentencing), rendered August 23, 2012, affirmed.</p><p>In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to prosecution by information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be assessed under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (<i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518, 521 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of forcible touching (see Penal Law ยง 130.52), the offense to which he pleaded guilty. The allegations - that at a specified time and inside a designated subway train, defendant "press[ed [his] erect penis" against the victim's hip area without the victim's consent - described conduct that would reasonably satisfy the "low threshold for the forcible component of this crime's actus reus" (<i>People v Guaman</i>, 22 NY3d 678, 684 [2014]; <a href="../2016/2016_03267.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Mora, </i>138 AD3d 641</a> [2016], <i>lv denied</i> ___ NY3d ___ [2016]). No additional evidentiary details were required for the People's pleading to provide "adequate notice to enable defendant to prepare a defense and invoke his protection against double jeopardy" (<a href="../2014/2014_02103.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Kasse</i>, 22 NY3d 1142</a>, 1143 [2014]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 19, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Paul H. Leonard v. C. G. Portier & Co.

(No. 2441.)

Appeal from G-alveston County.

Labatt & Noble, counsel for appellant.

Trezevant & Praniclin, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 362. *Petition held good on general demurrer; mutuality of contract; rules as to; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee to recover damages for a breach of the following instrument: “Calvert, Tex., March 14, 1887. This is to certify that we, the undersigned, have contracted with Mr. Paul H. Leonard, of Calvert, Texas, for his Calvert butcher wet salted hides, for seven cents, bulls, stags, damaged, out, free from salt and brine, and two pounds tare off of each hide, from March 14, 1887, till November, 1887. C. J. Portier & Co., per Phil. Doerr.” Appellant’s petition alleged the execution and delivery to him of said instrument by appellee, and his acceptance thereof; that he proceeded to execute his part of said contract by purchasing a large number of hides of the kind and description mentioned therein, between the 17th day of June and the 2Sth day of October, 1887, which hides he tendered appellees and they refused to accept and pay for the same, whereby appellant sustained loss in the sum of §410.93. A general demurre1 to the petition was sustained, and, appellant declining b amend, the suit was dismissed. It appears the tria judge sustained the demurrer upon the view that the instrument sued upon does not constitute a valid contract, because it is not mutually binding upon the parties; but that it is merely a unilateral undertaking or offer, which ' appellees had the right at any time to rescind or decline to perform. *Held:*The general rule is that the assent of parties to constitute a valid contract must be mutual and intended to bind both parties. A mere proposal by *432one man obviously constitutes no bargain of itself. It must be accepted by another, and this acceptance must be unconditional. [Benj. on Sales, §§ 39, 40, 41.] A promise is not a good consideration for a promise unless there is an absolute mutuality of engagements, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. But after ail engagement on the part of the promisee which is sufficient to bind him, then the promisor is bound also, because there is now a promise for a promise with entire mutuality of obligation. So, if the promisee begins to do the thing in a way which binds him to complete it, here, also, is a mutuality of obligation. [1 Parsons on Cont. 450, 451.] The acceptance of a contract signed only by the party delivering it, and tho execution of it in part by the party accepting, makes the contraét obligatory upon both parties. [Phelps v. Townsend, 8 Pick. 392; Com. Bank v. Nolan, *7*How. (Miss.) 508.] Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of this case, the appellant having accepted the contract, and having proceeded to execute it as alleged in the petition, it became a binding contract upon both parties, and a breach thereof constituted a valid cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

February 15, 1888.

Eeversed and remanded.
583 A.2d 313

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONNIE L. BRYANT.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                      MICRION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                        (UNAUDITED)                        (UNAUDITED)
                                                    For the three months                For the six months 
                                                     ended December 31,                  ended December 31,
                                                  1997              1998               1997              1998
                                                 -------           -------            -------           ------- 
                                                                (in thousands except per share data)

<S>                                              <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>     
Net Income (loss) .............................. $   640           ($  645)           $ 1,276           ($1,539)

(a) Computation of Basic Earnings
     per Share:

Weighted average common
shares outstanding
  Common stock .................................   4,054             4,075              4,051             4,075
                                                 -------           -------            -------           ------- 


 Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share ............... $  0.16           ($ 0.16)           $  0.31           ($ 0.38)
                                                 =======           =======            =======           ======= 


(b) Computation of Diluted
     Earnings per Share:

Weighted average common
equivalent shares outstanding
  Common stock .................................   4,054             4,075              4,051             4,075
  Common stock equivalents:
    Warrants(1) ................................      69                 0                 68                 0
    Options (2) ................................     267                 0                257                 0
                                                 -------           -------            -------           ------- 
Weighted average common and
common equivalent shares
outstanding ....................................   4,390             4,075              4,376             4,075
                                                 =======           =======            =======           ======= 


 Diluted Earnings (Loss) per Share ............. $  0.15           ($ 0.16)           $  0.29           ($ 0.38)
                                                 =======           =======            =======           ======= 

</TABLE>

(1) Warrants issued 5/94 for 100,000 shares, less shares reacquired under the
    treasury stock method.


(2) Options granted 11/94 through 9/97, less shares reacquired under the
    treasury stock method.









                                       15