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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1984 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1984

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
    Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
    Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$774,707,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY P. DONOVAN, JR., :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0353-WS-M

 :

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

 :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, 

and a de novo determination of those portions of the 

Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be 

AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED.

DONE this 8th day of June, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00353-WS-M Document 22 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1727 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 297
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1727

                          [Report No. 118-363]

 To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2023

Mr. Trone (for himself, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Norton, Ms. Wexton, 
 Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Beyer) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

                            January 30, 2024

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]
 [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 
                               22, 2023]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

 

    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 ``Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 
Historical Park Commission Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK COMMISSION.

    Section 6(g) of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act (16 
U.S.C. 410y-4(g)) is amended by striking ``40'' and all that follows 
through the period at the end and inserting ``on October 1, 2031.''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 297

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1727

                          [Report No. 118-363]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 30, 2024

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29926]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period on Lodging of 
Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act

    On November 17, 2014 the Department of Justice published a notice 
of the lodging of a proposed Consent Decree in the United States 
District Court for the District of Oregon in the lawsuit entitled 
United States v. Linnton Plywood Association, Civil Action No. 3:14-
1772. See 79 FR 68484. That notice commenced a thirty (30) day public 
comment period. By this notice, the United States hereby extends the 
public comment period by an additional thirty (30) days.
    Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United 
States v. Linnton Plywood Association, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-06787/3 
All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the 
publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by 
email or by mail:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         To submit comments:                     Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By e-mail...........................  <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d6d3c4c5c9cbcbc3c8d28bc3c3d588c3c8d4c2e6d3d5c2c9cc88c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3d382f2e2220202823396028283e6328233f290d383e292227632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.
By mail.............................  Assistant Attorney General
                                      U.S. DOJ_ENRD
                                      P.O. Box 7611
                                      Washington, DC 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be 
examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy 
of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction 
costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, 
U.S. DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
    Please enclose a check or money order for $18.75 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper 
copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $8.75.

Susan M. Akers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-29926 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10982

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADAM JOSHUA CORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-280-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Adam Joshua Cortez of attempting to entice a minor, via

the internet and a cellular telephone, to engage in illegal sexual activity and

with committing that offense while a registered sex offender. The district court

sentenced him to a total term of 360 months of imprisonment, to be followed by

a lifetime term of supervised released. Cortez now appeals.

Cortez did not object to the special conditions of his release in the district

court. Accordingly, we will review Cortez’s challenges to the conditions for plain

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10982 Document: 00512419156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 12-10982

error only. See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2013), petition

for cert. filed (Aug 16, 2013) (No. 13-5918).

On appeal, Cortez argues that the district court erred by imposing

excessively onerous special conditions of supervised release in his case. He

contends that the conditions individually and cumulatively are a greater

deprivation of liberty than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2). Cortez

specifically challenges the conditions (1) restricting his use of computers and the

internet, (2) banning him from contact with persons under the age of 18, (3)

banning him from places where children may frequently congregate, (4)

conditionally restricting him from dating or befriending anyone with children

under the age of 18 who live at home, (5) banning him from possessing sexually

oriented or sexually stimulating materials of adults, (6) banning him from

patronizing any place where sexually oriented or sexually stimulating materials

are available, and (7) requiring him to participate in treatment programs that

may include psycho-physiological testing and prescribed medications.

Cortez’s challenge to the special condition requiring to participate in

treatment programs is not ripe for appeal. See Ellis, 720 F.3d at 227. The

remaining conditions imposed in Cortez’s case are similar to those this court

upheld in Ellis. See id. at 225-27. Cortez has offered no convincing argument

to distinguish the conditions imposed in his case from those this court found to

be appropriate in Ellis. Given Cortez’s solicitation offense, and the pornography

found on his computer, the district court did not err, much less commit plain

error, in imposing those conditions. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,

135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-10982 Document: 00512419156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

         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
               operations of the Company.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.

/s/ Shujun Liu
------------------------------------
Shujun Liu
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2004

This Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided
by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 15, 2023

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00274

- CV

TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND PATRICIA MCCOLLU M , Appellants V. CITY OF MESQUITE, AC TING BY AND THROUGH ITS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT , Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 16933

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith Opinion by Jus tice Carlyle Before the Court is the April 27, 2023 letter of counsel for appellants stating

that they are withdrawing their notice of appeal. We construe the letter as a motion

to dismiss, grant the motion, and dismiss the app eal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a)(1).

230274f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ / CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND PATRICIA MCCOLLUM, Appellants

No. 05

- 23

- 00274

- CV V.

CITY OF MESQUITE, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 16933. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Molberg and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF MESQUITE, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT recover its costs of this appeal from appellants TEJAS MOTEL, L.L.C. AND PATRICIA M CCOLLUM.

Judgment entered this 15 th day of May

, 2023

.
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 on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the
"Companies") for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

/s/ PETER R. HUNTSMAN Peter R. Huntsman Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 19, 2010


---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ZERRICK C. ROBINSON, :

Petitioner, :

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0315-KD-C

vs. :

CRIMINAL NO. 12-0090-KD-C

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated May 8, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Robinson’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. 

DONE this 29th day of January 2016.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00090-KD-B Document 129 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
Case 1:12-cr-00090-KD-B Document 129 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ZERRICK C. ROBINSON, :

Petitioner, :

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0315-KD-C

vs. :

CRIMINAL NO. 12-0090-KD-C

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated 

May 8, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this ___________ day of June 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00090-KD-B Document 129 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74112-74113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-SERO-BICY-16765; PPSESEROC3, PMP00UP05.YP0000]


Assessment of Eligible and Ineligible Lands for Consideration as 
Wilderness Areas, Big Cypress National Preserve

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

[[Page 74113]]


ACTION: Notice of intent to assess Big Cypress National Preserve lands 
for wilderness eligibility.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, and in accordance with 
National Park Service (NPS) Management Policies (2006), Section 6.2.1, 
the NPS intends to assess lands within the original 1974 legislated 
boundary of Big Cypress National Preserve for wilderness eligibility. A 
determination of eligibility and subsequent future actions will be 
announced in the Federal Register upon completion of the assessment.

DATES: The eligibility assessment began on September 16, 2014 and is 
anticipated to be completed by January 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suggestions, comments, and requests 
for further information should be directed to Big Cypress National 
Preserve Chief of Interpretation Bob Degross by phone at 239-695-2000, 
via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#befcd1dce1fadbf9ccd1cdcdfed0cecd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8ba979aa7bc9dbf8a978b8bb896888bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail at Big Cypress National 
Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East Ochopee, Florida 34141.

    Dated: November 19, 2014.
Sherri L. Fields,
Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-29259 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JD-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jacob Bossence v. George W. Jones.

*Justices’ courts must wait an hour for defenda/nt.*

A justice of the peace must wait for the defendant for an hour after the time fixed for hearing, in any cases in which the plaintiff is allowed that time by Comp. L. § 5373.

*493Error to Lapeer.

Submitted June 29.

Decided July 1.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Beversed.

*C. P. Thomas*and *George Mott*for plaintiff in error.

Justices of the peace should wait a full hour for the parties to appear: *Shufelt v. Cramer*20 Johns. 309; *Sherwood v. S. & W. R. R. Co.*15 Barb. 655.

Moore, *Bentley & Palmer*for defendant in error.

Graves, J.

The only question raised by this record is whether a justice of the peace ought to wait an hour for the defendant to appear in the same cases in which by the terms of the statute such time is given to the plaintiff. The subject was referred to in *Smith v. Brown*34 Mich. 455, and notice was taken of the general practice to apply the same rule to the defendant as to the plaintiff. The distinction made by the words of the statute is not easily explained. No good reason is perceived for giving an additional hour to the plaintiff and withholding it from the defendant. It is the policy of the law that full opportunity shall be allowed for a fair hearing in these courts of the litigation which is proper to them, and justice requires that, both parties shall have equal chances, and any rule likely to-lead to what are called snap judgments cannot have any presumption in its favor. The popular understanding has always been that a delay of m hour for a defendant was legal, and it is not improbable that the Legislature supposed that the practice was already so firmly fixed as to supersede the necessity for any express reference to it. But however this may be it is certain that the justice ought to wait a reasonable time for the defendant and that, by analogy to-the time allowed for the plaintiff, may well be regarded as an hour. This accords with the general usage and common opinion and is in every view favorable to justice.

The judgments of both courts must be reversed with the costs of all.

The other Justices concurred.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1978 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute 

of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1978 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGES5 TIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na10 tional Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes 

11 and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for fiscal year 2024 

12 may not exceed $2,029,823,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2022 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2022

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Education, School Improvement Program for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Education, School Improvement Program for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
School Improvement Program for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```