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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1951 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

IT Modernization 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 Labor, IT Modernization 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, IT MODERNIZATION 

5 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Labor, IT Modernization for fiscal 

9 year 2024 may not exceed $2,826,900. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,573-01

EX PARTE KEVIN JONES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W401-80295-2018-HC IN THE 401 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam. KELLER, P.J., and SLAUGHTER, J., dissented.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was charged with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and one

count of indecency with a child by contact. He was acquitted of continuous sexual abuse, but

convicted of one count of indecency with a child by contact and sentenced to four years’

imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Jones v. State, No. 05-19-

01120-CR (Tex. App. — Dallas June 11, 2020) (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 trial counsel was ineffective because counsel

failed to request a unanimity instruction in the jury charge. The State presented evidence of multiple
2

incidents that could have been used to prove indecencywith a child by contact. However, the charge

in this case did not include an instruction to tell the jurors that they must be unanimous as to which

incident they believed occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court conducted a live habeas

hearing and heard testimony and arguments. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that

trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that Applicant was prejudiced.

Relief is granted. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The judgment in cause

number 401-80295-2018 in the 401st District Court of Collin County is set aside, and Applicant is

remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Collin County to answer the charges as set out in the

indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of

this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: December 7, 2022

Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2129 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2129

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
   Agencies, National Archives and Records Administration, Office of 
                Inspector General 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 Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
   Agencies, National Archives and Records Administration, Office of 
                Inspector General 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, 
              OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $4,823,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2135 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General vehicles 

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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General vehicles 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, OFFICE OF PER5 SONNEL MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF INSPEC6 TOR GENERAL VEHICLES FOR FISCAL YEAR 

7 2024. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

9 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:08 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2135.IH H2135

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2135 IH

1 able for Independent Agencies, Office of Personnel Man2 agement, Office of Inspector General vehicles for fiscal 

3 year 2024 may not exceed $5,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Malinda DAVIES; Orolobofaa Davies, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-1773.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 8, 2001.

Decided June 5, 2001.

*224Diane Elizabeth McHugh-Martinez, Law Office of McHugh-Martinez, Washington, DC, for petitioners.

David Michael McConnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

ON BRIEF: David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Malinda and Orolobofaa Davies seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reopen their case.

The Petitioners, who have been in this country legally since they entered in 1985 as the wife and daughter of a now deceased diplomat, contend that the Board abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen after they had failed to attend their immigration hearing. When an immigration judge and the Board denied an earlier motion to reopen, the Petitioners filed the motion to reopen at issue here. They asserted that prior counsel, who had represented them since the beginning of this case, had been ineffective in numerous respects. The Board denied the motion, finding it was procedurally barred and did not comply with the requirements for making an ineffective assistance claim set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), *aff'd,*857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir.1988).

We have carefully considered the briefs of the parties, oral argument of counsel, the record in the case, and relevant legal authorities. Under the unusual facts and exceptional circumstances presented in this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen. Given those facts and circumstances, the time and numerical requirements that the Board found procedurally barred consideration of the motion were equitably tolled. Furthermore, the record reveals that the Petitioners substantially complied with the requirements set forth in *Lozada*for establishing that ineffective assistance prevented their attendance at the hearing. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, reverse the denial of the motion to reopen, and remand the case to the Board so that it may con*225sider the merits of Petitioners’ motion to reopen.

*PETITION GRANTED, REVERSED, AND REMANDED.*
List
        of Subsidiaries of Genesis Pharmaceuticals Enterprises, Inc.. a Florida
        Corporation (“Genesis”)
 
 (1)
              Genesis
                  Equity Partners, LLC, a Florida limited liability
                  company
 
 (2)
              Genesis
                  Equity Partners, LLC (Huayang), a Delaware limited liability
                  company
 
 (3)
              Genesis
                  Equity Partners, LLC (Liziyuan), a Delaware limited liability
                  company
 
 (4)
              Genesis
                  Equity Partners, LLC (Site), a Delaware limited liability
                  company
 
 (5)
              Karmoya
                  International Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company
                  (“Karmoya”)
 
 (6)
              Union
                  Well International Limited, a Cayman Islands company (“Union Well”) (owned
                  100% by Karmoya)
 
 (7)
              Genesis
                  Jiangbo (Laiyang) Biotech Technologies Co., Ltd., a wholly foreign
                  owned
                  limited liability company organized under the laws of the People’s
                  Republic of China (“GJBT”) (owned 100% by Union
                  Well)
 
 (8)
              Laiyang
                  Jiangbo Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Laiyang Jiangbo”), a limited liability
                  company organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China
                  (controlled by GJBT through various consulting service and equity
                  related
                  agreements)1









1 PRC
          law
          currently has limits on foreign ownership of certain companies. To comply
          with
          these foreign ownership restrictions, we operate our pharmaceutical business
          in
          China through Laiyang Jiangbo. Laiyang Jiangbo holds the licenses and approvals
          necessary to operate our pharmaceutical business in China. We have contractual
          arrangements with Laiyang Jiangbo and its shareholders pursuant to which
          we
          provide technology consulting and other general business operation services
          to
          Laiyang Jiangbo. Through these contractual arrangements, we also have the
          ability to substantially influence Laiyang Jiangbo’s daily operations and
          financial affairs, appoint its senior executives and approve all matters
          requiring shareholder approval. As a result of these contractual arrangements,
          which enable us to control Laiyang Jiangbo, we are considered the primary
          beneficiary of Laiyang Jiangbo. Accordingly, we consolidate Laiyang Jiangbo's
          results, assets and liabilities in our financial statements. For a description
          of these contractual arrangements, see the section titled “Contractual
          Arrangements with Laiyang Jiangbo and its Shareholders” in our Current Report on
          Form 8-K, as amended, filed on October 9, 2007.
10108.

#### Mays *v.*Curry, solicitor.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Claim; from city court of Richmond county—Judge Black. September 10, 1918.

*W. D. Irvin, Benjamin E. Pierce,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. Inman Curry, solicitor,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The Supreme Court, in response to certain questions certified to it in this case, held that “ Where a father, having title and ownership of an automobile, lent it to a son for the purpose of the latter using it as a ‘hack’ or ‘jitney’ in a designated city, the son taking out a license in his own name to conduct a ‘ jitney ’ business, profits arising therefrom belonging to the son, and where the automobile was seized by the officers in the possession of and driven by the son, and found to contain a large quantity of whisky, the father having no knowledge that the car was to be used in transporting whisky, and the petition for condemnation alleged that the son was the owner, the automobile could not be condemned and sold in a proceeding brought under § 20 of the prohibition act approved. March 28, 1917 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 7). *Shrouder*v. *Sweat,*148 Ga. 378 (96 S. E. 881); *Lang*v. *Hitt,*149 *Ga.*667 (101 S. E. 795) (101 S. E. 795).” 150 *Ga.*290 (103 S. E. 458).

2. In view of the above ruling by the Supreme Court, the trial judge erred in overruling claimant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1950 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1950

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, National Veteran's Employment and Training Services Institute 
                         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 Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, National Veteran's Employment and Training Services Institute 
                         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 LABOR, 
              NATIONAL VETERAN'S EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES 
              INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
National Veteran's Employment and Training Services Institute for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $3,414,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                                         3,871,186
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         800,011
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    682,811
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        100,795,304
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,374,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,470,018
<DEPOSITS>                                     108,018,808
<SHORT-TERM>                                   3,000,738
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            0
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       617,725
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,832,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 119,470,018
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                7,188,983
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              32,934
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               180,839
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,402,756
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,523,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,523,661
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,879,095
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  140,019
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4,531,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,032,083
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,032,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   646,003
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 9.80
<LOANS-NON>                                    257,493
<LOANS-PAST>                                   2,149,037
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,516,705
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  285,871
<RECOVERIES>                                   3,322
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,374,175
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,374,175
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        51,000



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (SEC File #: 333-83504), filed on February 27, 2002, of our independent
accountant's review report dated February 11, 2003 relating to the unaudited
consolidated balance sheets of Composite Technology Corporation (SEC File
#0-10999, CIK # 317477) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related
statements of operations and comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the
three months ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which report
appears in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Composite Technology
Corporation.


                                                        /s/ S. W. Hatfield, CPA
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        S. W. HATFIELD, CPA
Dallas, Texas
February 11, 2003
JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this action is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice as to all defendants. 

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT THOMAS, JR.,

AIS #115280,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-248-WS-M

:

CORIZON, INC., et. al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

Case 1:15-cv-00248-WS-M Document 61 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 11.1
                               CORCOM, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED)
                      (In Thousands, except Share Data)


                             Thirteen Weeks Ended       Twenty-six Weeks Ended
                            ----------------------    ------------------------
                             June 28,     June 29,      June 28,      June 30, 
                                1997         1996          1997          1996
                             --------     --------      --------      --------
Net earnings per common and
common equivalent share:

Average shares outstanding     3,822        3,787         3,824         3,769

Additional shares assuming 
exercise of dilutive stock 
options based on the treasury 
stock method using average 
market price                     136          206           138           194

AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND 
COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES       3,958        3,993         3,962         3,963

Net earnings                   $ 990      $ 1,303       $ 1,731       $ 2,567

Net earnings per common and
common equivalent share:       $ .25        $ .33         $ .44         $ .65


Net earnings per common and 
common equivalent share - 
assuming full dilution:

Average shares outstanding     3,822        3,787         3,824         3,769

Additional shares assuming 
exercise of dilutive stock 
options based on the treasury 
stock method using the period 
end price if higher than the 
average market price.            137          206           138          197

FULLY DILUTED AVERAGE NUMBER 
OF COMMON AND COMMON 
EQUIVALENT SHARES              3,959        3,993         3,962        3,966

Net earnings                   $ 990      $ 1,303       $ 1,731       $2,567

Net earnings per common and 
common equivalent shares       $ .25        $ .33         $ .44        $ .65
<PAGE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0429-15

FRANCISCO DURAN, JR. , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER REGARDING REPRESENTATION

CAMERON COUNTY

This order was delivered per curiam.

O R D E R

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation in cause number 2012-DCR-867-I in the

445th District Court of Cameron County. Appellant was sentenced to confinement for 25 years. The

court of appeals affirmed, as modified, the judgment of the trial court. Duran v. State, No. 13-12-

00344-CR (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi - Edinburg, delivered July 3, 2013). The Appellant’s Pro

se petition for discretionary review was granted by this Court on July 1, 2015. Appellant is entitled

to representation before this Court at this time. See Article 1.051(a)(d)(2), V.A.C.C.P. It appears
DURAN -2

that Appellant is without representation in this court. Accordingly, the trial court is ordered to

determine if Appellant is currently represented by counsel, and if so, to inform this court who

represents Appellant. If Appellant is not currently represented by counsel and desires counsel, the

trial court must first determine whether Appellant is indigent. If the trial court finds Appellant is

indigent, that court shall appoint an attorney to represent Appellant before this court in regard to

PDR No. PD-00429-15, in accord with the provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any

hearing conducted pursuant to this order shall be held within 30 days of the date of this order. The

trial court's order appointing counsel, any findings of fact, affidavits, or transcription of the court

reporter's notes and any other supplementation of the record shall be returned to this court within 45

days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JULY, 2015 st

DO NOT PUBLISH