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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 47 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 47

 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives respecting budget-
                        related points of order.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2017

 Mr. Renacci (for himself, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Westerman) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives respecting budget-
                        related points of order.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``13.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a resolution reported 
by the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill or 
joint resolution that waives, or has the effect of waiving, any budget-
related point of order unless the resolution specifies each such point 
of order.
    ``(b)(1) Upon consideration of a resolution reported by the 
Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill or joint 
resolution, it shall be in order to offer a motion to strike or amend 
any provision of the resolution that waives, or has the effect of 
waiving, the application of a budget-related point of order in order to 
eliminate any such waiver from the resolution.
    ``(2) A motion made pursuant to subparagraph (1)--
            ``(A) shall be privileged;
            ``(B) shall be debatable for 20 minutes, divided evenly 
        between those in favor of the motion and those opposed to the 
        motion; and
            ``(C) may not be amended.
    ``(3) At the conclusion of any debate on a motion made pursuant to 
subparagraph (1), the previous question shall be considered as ordered. 
It shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
    ``(c) In this clause, the term `budget-related point of order' 
means--
            ``(1) in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
        Act of 1974--
                    ``(A) section 302(f);
                    ``(B) section 303;
                    ``(C) section 306(b);
                    ``(D) section 311; or
                    ``(E) section 401; and
            ``(2) clause 10 of rule XXI.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         866,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,417,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   147,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,630,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,046,000
<PP&E>                                         411,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 853,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,350,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 16,272,000
<COMMON>                                    12,358,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,457,000
<SALES>                                      2,206,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,206,000
<CGS>                                        1,614,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,675,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (697,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (697,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1895 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the 
 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, 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. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.

    (a) In General.--Any program, authority, or provision, including 
any pilot program, authorized under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
631 et seq.) or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 
661 et seq.) as of September 30, 2003, that is scheduled to expire on 
or after September 30, 2003 and before March 15, 2004, shall remain 
authorized through March 15, 2004, under the same terms and conditions 
in effect on September 30, 2003.
    (b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), section 303(g)(2) 
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(g)(2)) is 
amended by striking ``1.38 percent'' and inserting ``1.46 percent''.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the Small Business Act and the 
 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through March 15, 2004, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1825

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for the sale 

and use of unauthorized mobile infrared transmitters. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 5, 2003

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties 

for the sale and use of unauthorized mobile infrared 

transmitters.

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 ‘‘Safe Intersections Act 

5 of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OFFENSE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 
2

•S 1825 IS 

1 ‘‘§ 39. Mobile infrared transmitters 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever—

3 ‘‘(1) provides for sale to unauthorized users a 

4 mobile infrared transmitter in or affecting interstate 

5 or foreign commerce shall be fined not more than 

6 $10,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; 

7 and 

8 ‘‘(2) is an unauthorized user in possession of a 

9 mobile infrared transmitter in a motor vehicle in or 

10 affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be 

11 fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more 

12 than 6 months, or both. 

13 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section—

14 ‘‘(1) the term ‘mobile infrared transmitter’ 

15 means any device or mechanism that emits infrared 

16 signals with the purpose of changing a traffic signal; 

17 and 

18 ‘‘(2) the term ‘unauthorized user’ means a user 

19 of a mobile infrared transmitter who is not author20 ized to use the transmitter for official government 

21 purposes.’’. 

22 (b) CHAPTER ANALYSIS.—The chapter analysis for 

23 chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

24 inserting after the item for section 39 the following:

‘‘39. Mobile infrared transmitters.’’.

Æ
John Kaufmann


John stays
busy as an illustrator for the education and advertising markets. With
over 20 years of experience in commercial art, he has recently ventured
into space art, sci/fi and fantasy paintings. John's work has been
chosen for numerous awards at art shows across the country and he is an
active artist member of the IAAA (International Astronomical Artists
Association). Of course none of this would be possible without the
support of his wife and best friend Julie.
July 2008Return to Apollo 11 Anaglyphs
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,891
<SECURITIES>                                 4,071,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                  854,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,782
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,661
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,936,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,591,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     65,805
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                     278,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,936,324
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,367
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,402
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,591
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,649
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,649
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,649
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
        

</TABLE>
#### The State *v.*Shearer.—In error.

AN indictment charged the defendant *8.*with retailing liquor in *Noble*county without license, “ to be drunk in the house of him the said *S.*where the same was so sold as aforesaid.” *Held,*that the fact that the said house was in *Noble*county (supposing it ought to appear) was shown with sufficient certainty.
Order entered August 5, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00376
- CR JOE HENRY MACK, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002
- 80956
- 2013



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant de sires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective repres entation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
#### Marshall and Others *v.*The State.

A bond was executed to the stalo by *A.*and others in 1836, conditioned that *A*should faithfully discharge his duties as commissioner of the three *per cent.*fund of *Perry*county, &c. *Held,*that the bond was void as having been taken without authority. *Held,*also, that the commissioner himself was liable to the county, independently of the bond, for any breach of his duties.

APPEAL from the *Perry*Circuit Court.

*J. Morrison*and *S. Major,*for the appellants. *A. A. Hammond*and *J. Lockhart,*for the state.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of debt by the state against *William Marshall*and others. The suit is founded on a penal bond dated *September*the 6th, 1836, and payable to the state, conditioned that *Marshall*should faithfully discharge his duties as commissioner of the three *per cent,*fund of *Perry*county, appropriated at the twentieth session of the general assembly to that county, by applying the same according to law, and that he should perform all the duties of commissioner as aforesaid. Demurrer to the declaration; demurrer overruled, &c.; and judgment for the state.

The only question in this cause is whether the bond is void, as having been taken without authority; and we think it is.' If the money placed in the commissioner’s hands had belonged to the state, and he had been accountable to the state for its disbursement, the bond might have been sustained as a voluntary bond, though not authorized by statute. But the facts are otherwise. The money belonged to the county, and the count}’’ alone must be viewed as interested in its legal disbursement. The commissioner was appointed by the board of county commissioners, and the statute required him to give bond to such board for the due performance of his duties. Under these circumstances, we think the bond to the state is unauthorized and void. The commissioner himself is liable'to the county, independently of the bond, for any breach of his duties.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 09

- 00 396

- CR

ROBERTO AGUILAR APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 90 TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the appellant’s A Motion To Dismiss Appeal. @ The

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J. ; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P

. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 22 , 2010

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 17, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00597

- CR

Albert James Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, P EMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment s : IT I S ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment s

of the trial court are in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be cert ified

below for observance.
N0 .. 1~80 

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTJUCT COURT 

vs. ~ . 29'h .JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

JOHN MICHAEL RAY MARSH 

§ 

§ PALO PINTO COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

NOW COMES, JOHN MICHAEL RAY MARSH, Defendant in the above-styled and 

numbered cause, and gives this written notice ofappeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas 

from the judgment of conviction and sentence herein rendered against JOHN MICHAEL RAY 

MARSH, a party to this proceeding who seeks to alter the trial court's judgment or other appealable 

order. This is an appeal in Motion to Proceed with an Adjudication of Guilt case as defined under 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), and Defendant is appealing only those matters that 

were raised by a Written motion filed and ruled on before trial. Tex. R. App. P .25.2(a)(2)(A). 

FILED 

AT 12.".QQ ~ 

NOTICE OF APPEAL Pagel 

Respectfully submitted, 

CANNON LAW FIRM 

215 Old Annetta Road 

Aledo, Texas 76008 

Tel: (81 7) 441-4114 

Fax: (817) 441-1650 

 FILED IN 11th COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND, TEXAS 7/14/17 1:31:06 PM SHERRY WILLIAMSON Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on the J.f_ day of July, 2017, a true and correct copy of th~ above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Palo Pinto County, 

520 Oak Street, Palo Pinto, Texas 76484, via hand delivery. 

NOTICE OF' APPEAL Page 2
1 min read

# About Integrated Aviation Systems Program (IASP)

### Lillian Gipson

#### Web Editor

Jul 13, 2016

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

IASP conducts flight-oriented, system-level research and technology development to effectively mature and transition advanced aeronautic technologies into future air vehicles and operational systems. IASP focuses on the rigorous execution of highly complex flight tests and related experiments to support all phases of NASA’s aeronautics research. For technologies at low technology readiness levels, IASP flight research aims to accelerate development and determine feasibility. For more mature technologies, IASP intends to reduce potential risk and accelerate transition to industry.

## IASP Projects

Flight Demos & Capabilities

Low Boom Flight Demonstrator

Electrified Powertrain Flight Demo

Sustainable Flight Demonstrator

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero@NASA_es

@NASA@NASAaero

## Explore More

7 min readARMD SolicitationsArticle										2 weeks ago									

1 min readNASA TACP Team Visits with UCF Students, FacultyArticle										3 weeks ago									

3 min read2024 Dream with Us Design Challenge WinnersArticle										4 weeks ago									

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Missions

Humans In Space
Solar System Exploration
Why Oceans Matter The story of oceans is the story of life. Life as we know it requires three ingredients:…

Explore NASA’s History

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

jim.banke@nasa.gov

## Related Terms

                - Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
                - Integrated Aviation Systems Program
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 PURSUANT
TO
 
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2005
 
 
 I, Maria
Fenanda Rosales, Chief Financial Officer of Promotora. Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
   Maria
      Fernanda RosalesChief
      Financial OfficerDated:
      March 26 , 2008
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Johnny Ray Moore, Appellant

No. 06-12-00178-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12F113-

005). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Johnny Ray Moore, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### G. W. Gray’s Admx. *v.*J. F. Clarkson’s Exr. et al.

Jurisdiction of Circuit Court — Amount.

Where the debt after adding interest and deducting credits was les3 than $50 at the time the action was begun, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction.

APPEAL EROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 27, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

It is manifest from a careful figuring up of principal and interest and deducting credits that the amount due on the note sued on when the action was commenced was less than $50.

*404And, therefore, under *section 29, Civil Code,*as the matter in controversy at the commencement of the action did not exceed $50 the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, and the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained for that cause.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the petition, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                             As Adopted Pursuant to

                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Azur International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald H. Goree, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            opTerations of the Company.

Dated:   August 12, 2005                          By: /s/ Donald H. Goree
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Donald H. Goree
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chairman of the Board