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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2181 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2181

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
                               Colorado.

    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 ``Rocky Mountain National Park 
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Federal parcel.--The term ``Federal parcel'' means the 
        parcel of approximately 70 acres of Federal land near MacGregor 
        Ranch, Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map numbered 121/
        80,154, dated June 2004.
            (3) Non-federal parcels.--The term ``non-Federal parcels'' 
        means the 3 parcels of non-Federal land comprising 
        approximately 5.9 acres that are located near MacGregor Ranch, 
        Larimer County, Colorado, as depicted on the map.
            (4) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Rocky Mountain National 
        Park in the State of Colorado.

SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) Exchange of Land.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept an offer to 
        convey all right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal 
        parcels to the United States in exchange for the Federal 
        parcel.
            (2) Conveyance.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
        which the Secretary receives an offer under paragraph (1), the 
        Secretary shall convey the Federal parcel in exchange for the 
        non-Federal parcels.
            (3) Conservation easement.--As a condition of the exchange 
        of land under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall reserve a 
        perpetual easement to the Federal parcel for the purposes of 
        protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values 
        of the Federal parcel.
    (b) Boundary Adjustment; Management of Land.--On acquisition of the 
non-Federal parcels under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall--
            (1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect the 
        acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and
            (2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of the Park, in 
        accordance with any laws (including regulations) applicable to 
        the Park.

            Passed the Senate October 10, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2181

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
                               Colorado.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2214

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ``Mike 
                        Mansfield Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2004

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, Montana, as the ``Mike 
                        Mansfield Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MIKE MANSFIELD POST OFFICE, MISSOULA, MONTANA.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3150 Great Northern Avenue in Missoula, Montana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Mike Mansfield 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 ``Mike 
Mansfield Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         106,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,999,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   368,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,884,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,296,275
<PP&E>                                       9,029,542
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,685,402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,462,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,212,953
<BONDS>                                      2,182,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,664,809
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,462,857
<SALES>                                      3,186,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,186,910
<CGS>                                        2,084,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,455,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,158,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,513,948)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,503,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (503,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2109 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2109

     To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2004

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
 Levin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, 
Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.

    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 ``Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization 
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. 10-YEAR EXTENSION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN.

    Section 110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use 
Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 110105. SUNSET PROVISION.

    ``This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle are 
repealed September 13, 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. STRICKLAND

No. 483A95-2

Case below: Union County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Union County, denied 18 December 2001.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T11:40:05Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:40:06Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:40:06Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="14189">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T11:40:05Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION I O-7520 WAS NEVER ISSUED OR 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,970-01

EX PARTE TANYA MARIE WARRELL MCMILLAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR14-150 IN THE 4 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM RUSK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of theft and sentenced to fortyyears’imprisonment. The Sixth Court

of Appeals affirmed her conviction. McMillan v. State,No. 06-16-00209-CR(Tex.App.—Texarkana

Aug. 22, 2017) (not designated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends, among other things, that her sentence is illegal because the prior

conviction used as an enhancement in this case was an un-revoked, probated sentence from federal

court. We order that this application be filed and set for submission to determine (1) whether Ex

parte Pue, 552 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018), announced a new rule for purposes of
2

retroactivity; (2) if Pue announced a new rule, whether it is a substantive or procedural rule; and (3)

whether one of the exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity applies. See Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288, 307 (1989). The parties shall brief these issues. Oral argument is not permitted.

The trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and

wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent her. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. Within sixty days from the date of this order, the trial court shall send

to this Court a supplemental transcript containing the order appointing counsel or a statement that

Applicant is not indigent or does not want to be represented by counsel. All briefs shall be filed with

this Court within ninety days from the date of this order.

Filed: February 12, 2020

Do not publish
|   | (a) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of and for the period covered by the                Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                         |                                         |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Date: November                8, 2005 | By:                                                | /s/ Christopher                C. Jurey |
|                                       |                                                              |
|                                       | Christopher                C. Jurey, Chief Financial Officer |
|                                       |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-15-1997             SEP-07-1997
<CASH>                                           5,717                   5,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      141                     169
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        459                     460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,713                   6,359
<PP&E>                                          43,079                  43,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,417)                (13,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,342                  37,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,332                   9,706
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175                   5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,115                  42,115
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,745)                (20,680)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,342                  37,679
<SALES>                                         33,485                  51,819
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,485                  51,819
<CGS>                                            9,105                  13,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,981                  51,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9                      13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (416)                     649
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (416)                     649
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (416)                     649
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)<F1>                0.11<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)                    0.09
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THE EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Ward and Another *v.*Leviston.

*Wednesday, July*23.

If *B.,*a member of a firm, deal in his own name in business of the firm with *A.,*who is ignorant of the partnership, the latter may be sued for a demand against him, arising from such dealing, either by *B.*alone or by the firm.

And in a suit by the firm for such demand, *A.’s*right of set-off is the same as if *B.*had sued alone.

APPEAL from the *Union*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

— Dormiré and *Ward*sued *Leviston,*in assumpsit, before a justice of the peace. The statement of their demand was an account in their favour against *Leviston*for boots, shoes, &c., commencing in 1839 and ending in 1842, amounting to 64 dollars and 87 cents. No plea was filed before the justice; but in the Circuit Court, on appeal, the defendant pleaded. that, before and at the time of making the account sued for, he held a note against *Dormiré*for 50 dollars, which was still due; that previously to any partnership between the plaintiffs, the defendant “had a running account with *Dormiré,*which was to have been settled by a credit on the note;” that without any notice of the partnership, the defendant continued to deal, as usual, with *Dormiré*alone. A general demurrer to the plea was overruled. Final judgment for the defendant.

The plea raises the question whether a firm, one of whose members has dealt in his own name, but in a matter in which his co-partners were interested, with a person who had no knowledge of the partnership, can maintain an action against that person on account of such dealing? If a joint *467suit cannot be maintained, the plea, as amounting to the general issue, was a good bar to the action, under a general demurrer, and the decision of the Circuit Court was correct. But we think that, in such cases, the action may be either by the firm, or by the partner who made the contract. *Skinner et al.*v. *Stocks,*4 Barn. & Ald. 437. The plea, therefore, was not even an argumentative denial of the right to sustain the joint action, and the demurrer should have been overruled.

*J. Ryman*and *J. B. Sleeth,*for the appellants.

*J. Perry*and *J. S. Reid,*for the appellee.

If *Ward*was a dormant partner of *Dormiros,*unknown to the defendant, who supposed when he took up the articles sued for that he was dealing exclusively with *Dormiré,*the joint form of the action would not prevent him from availing himself of any matter of set-off which he held against *Dormiré*alone. If concealed partners suffer one of the firm to conduct their business, as the only person ostensibly concerned in the matter, they subject themselves, in a joint action, to the same right of set-off by the defendant, which he would have had in a several action by the partner with whom he dealt. *Stracey et al.*v. *Deey,*7 T. R. 357, n.—*George*v. *Clagett, id.*355. The plea under consideration, however, has neither the form nor substance of a plea of set-off.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Anthony Sirico et al., Respondents, v Nancy L. Beukelaer, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 662]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered June 21, 2004, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant met her burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by proving that the motor vehicle accident at issue did not result from any negligence on her part *(see Baker v Staria,*6 AD3d 639 [2004]; *Hudson v Goodwin,*272 AD2d 296, 297 [2000]; *Canceleno v Johnston,*264 AD2d 405, 406 [1999]). The plaintiffs, in opposition, failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs attorney lacked probative weight and could not raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).*Mere speculation that the defendant may have failed to take some unspecified measures to avoid the accident, or in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident, was insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment *(see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra*at 562-563; *Baker v Staria, supra; Davis v Quinones,*295 AD2d 394 [2002]; *Salazar v Ospina,*253 *550AD2d 550, 551 [1998]; *Williams v Econ,*221 AD2d 429, 430 [1995]).

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S JUNE 30, 1998 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,096,273
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,000
<INVENTORY>                                 30,616,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,246,987
<PP&E>                                      27,589,277
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,623,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,924,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,832,679
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,250
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,026,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,924,065
<SALES>                                     32,097,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,097,240
<CGS>                                       22,578,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,580,405
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (26,654)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                964,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                   394,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            570,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   570,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>