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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 501 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 501

      To amend the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 to provide for the 
  establishment of a toll-free telephone number for the reporting of 
 stolen and abandoned passenger motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 to provide for the 
  establishment of a toll-free telephone number for the reporting of 
 stolen and abandoned passenger motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Car Find Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR REPORTING OF 
              STOLEN AND ABANDONED VEHICLES.

    Title I of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 3384-3389) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``Subtitle D--Reporting of Stolen and Abandoned Vehicles

``SEC. 151. ESTABLISHMENT OF TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER.

    ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish and 
publicize a toll-free telephone number that individuals may use to 
report that their passenger motor vehicle has been stolen and that 
individuals may use to report the location of any abandoned passenger 
motor vehicle.
    ``(b) Use of Information.--The Attorney General shall use 
information obtained through the use of the toll-free telephone number 
to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, 
insurance carriers, and other appropriate persons.
    ``(c) Fees.--The Attorney General is authorized to collect fees 
from insurance carriers and other appropriate persons to offset the 
costs of establishing and maintaining the toll-free telephone number. 
Such fees shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section amounts equivalent to the 
amounts collected in fees pursuant to subsection (c), as well as such 
other sums as may be necessary.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 597 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 597

To Prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 1997

Mrs. Chenoweth (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Smith of 
   Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To Prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
   in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of 
                   Congress, 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. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN IDAHO.

    No extension or establishment of a national monument may be 
undertaken in Idaho after the date of enactment of this Act without 
full public participation and an express Act of Congress.
                                 <all>
```
423 A.2d 1303

#### Commonwealth v. Sayko, Appellant.

Submitted March 23, 1979.

Ronald F. O’Driscoll, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; James A. Cunningham, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 50","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WOoK7EzPRn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-50\/\">Expedition 50<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-50\/embed\/#?secret=WOoK7EzPRn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 50” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WOoK7EzPRn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp50-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Exhibit 20(a)

                ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                   FINGERHUT MASTER TRUST


     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of
Fingerhut National Bank, as the Servicer pursuant to the
Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of January 12, 1997, (the "Pooling and Servicing
Agreement"), by and among Fingerhut Receivables, Inc. (the
"Transferor"), Fingerhut National Bank, as Servicer and The
Bank of New York (Delaware), as trustee (the "Trustee") does
hereby certify that:

     1.   Since January 12, 1997, Fingerhut National Bank
has been the Servicer.

     2.   The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this
Certificate to the Trustee.

     3.   This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section
3.5 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

     4.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during
the period from December 28, 1996 until December 26, 1997
was conducted under my supervision.

     5.   Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the
best of my knowledge, fully performed all of its obligations
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout such
period and no default in the performance of such obligations
has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in
paragraph 6 below.

     6.   The following is a description of each default in
the performance of the Servicer's obligations under the
provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, including
any Supplement, known to me to have been made during such
period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each
such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any,
to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status of
each such default:

          None.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed
this certificate on March 19, 1998.


                         FINGERHUT NATIONAL BANK


                                   /s/James M. Wehmann
                         Name:     James M. Wehmann
                         Title:    Treasurer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT  23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-78352-D) pertaining to The UniMark Group, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock
Option Plan and The UniMark Group, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Directors of
our report dated April 13, 1999, with respect to the financial statements of The
UniMark Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1998.



                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 13, 1999
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Justin Wright, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00001

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13

- F

1055

- 005 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Mo s eley and

* Justice Carter participating. *Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. We note that the appellant, Justin Wright, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 11, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,156
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,203
<PP&E>                                           6,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,119
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,548
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,417
<SALES>                                         41,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,820
<CGS>                                           23,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (234)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,069
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,255
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,255
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINICK BOOKER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 460 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Case 2:15-mj-01738-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01738-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01738-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 570 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 570

    To make appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for a plant genetic 
                         conservation program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

   Mr. Mink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for a plant genetic 
                         conservation program.

    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 ``Plant Genetic Conservation 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.

SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION FOR PLANT GENETIC CONSERVATION.

    The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal year 1998:

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service

                       plant genetic conservation

    For expenses necessary to carry out a plant genetic conservation 
program to store material from rare, endangered, and threatened plants 
in Hawaii and other States and areas of the United States, including 
expenses for construction and maintenance of a temperature-controlled 
facility for such purpose, $1,500,000.
                                 <all>
```
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 562

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent, for unemployment

compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to

a penal institution from being treated as employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr.

ROGAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent,

for unemployment compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to a penal institution

from being treated as employment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SERVICES PER4 FORMED BY INMATES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 3306 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining employment)

7 is amended—
2

•HR 562 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph

2 (19),

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (20) and inserting ‘‘; or’’, and

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(21) service performed by a person committed

8 to a penal institution.’’

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply with respect to service performed

11 on or after March 26, 1996.

Æ
Case 2:15-mj-01644-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01644-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01644-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2881 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 2881

 To clarify that State tax incentives for investment in new machinery 
and equipment are a reasonable regulation of commerce and not an undue 
         burden on interstate commerce, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2004

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. DeWine) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify that State tax incentives for investment in new machinery 
and equipment are a reasonable regulation of commerce and not an undue 
         burden on interstate commerce, 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. STATE TAX INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW MACHINERY AND 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--A State may provide to any entity--
             (1) a credit against any tax or fee owed to the State 
        under a State law; or
             (2) any other tax incentive,
determined by the State to be appropriate, in an amount calculated 
under a formula determined by the State, for investment in new 
machinery or equipment located in the State by the entity that receives 
such credit or such incentive.
    (b) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--Any action taken by a State in 
accordance with this section with respect to a tax or fee payable, or 
incentive applicable, for any period beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act shall--
             (1) be considered to be a reasonable regulation of 
        commerce; and
             (2) not be considered to impose an undue burden on 
        interstate commerce or to otherwise impair, restrain, or 
        discriminate against interstate commerce.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nelson Lee JENNINGS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7522.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2005.

Decided: Feb. 24, 2005.

Nelson Lee Jennings, Appellant pro se.

*571Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Lee Jennings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jennings has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,697
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,680
<PP&E>                                         100,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,921
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,515
<SALES>                                         79,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,617
<CGS>                                           48,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,062
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,863
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.11


</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00049

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF L.K. AND O.K., C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 393rd District Court
of Denton County (14

- 09269

- 393)

November 8, 2018
Opinion by Justice Birdw ell
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there
was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s “Order on Motion
for Enforcement of Child Support Order” and its “Order on Motion for Add itional
Orders on Motion for Enforcement of Child Support” and remand this case to the

trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is further ordered that appellees D.L.K. and M. A. K. shall pay all of the costs
of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Wade Birdwell

___________________ Justice Wade Birdwell