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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1974 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1974

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-
       Wide Activities and Program Support 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, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-
       Wide Activities and Program Support 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, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION-WIDE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAM SUPPORT 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, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Wide 
Activities and Program Support for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$163,570,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2179 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Department 

of Interior, Insular Affairs, Compact of Free Association 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 Natural Resources, and in addition to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 

Department of Interior, Insular Affairs, Compact of Free 

Association 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2179 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, INSULAR 

3 AFFAIRS, COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION 

4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

6 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail7 able for U.S. Department of Interior, Insular Affairs, 

8 Compact of Free Association for fiscal year 2024 may not 

9 exceed $3,413,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

[Docket ID USN-2014-0020]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title, Associated Form And OMB Number: Personalized Recruiting for 
Immediate and Delayed Enlistment Modernization (PRIDE Mod); OMB Control 
Number 0703-XXXX.
    Type Of Request: New collection
    Number Of Respondents: 60,000
    Responses Per Respondent: 1
    Annual Responses: 60,000
    Average Burden Per Response: 60 minutes
    Annual Burden Hours: 60,000 hours
    Needs And Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to support the U.S. Navy's process to recruit and access persons for 
naval service.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark 
Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: December 24, 2014.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2014-30612 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
csgs-ex1024as_46.htm


Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.24AS

 

 

NINETY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT

TO THE

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

 

 

This Ninety-eighth Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc. (“CSG”), and Time Warner Cable Inc. (“TWC”).  The effective date of this Amendment is the date last signed below (the "Effective Date").  CSG and TWC entered into a certain CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement executed March 13, 2003, and effective as of April 1, 2003, as amended  (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment, shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

 

CSG and TWC agree to the following as of the Effective Date:

 


	
1.
	
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, which includes Exhibit C-4 to the Agreement and the Seventy-fifth Amendment (CSG document number 2503407) to the Agreement executed effective as of August 1, 2013 (“75th Amendment”), TWC agrees to purchase *** (*) additional Video View Block of **** ******* ***** ******** (*******) Video Views.




 


	
2.
	
Following execution of this Amendment by the parties, CSG shall invoice TWC the amount of $********** for the Video View Block referenced in Section 1 above.  The Video Views within such Video View Block shall expire if not consumed by Customers within the Consumption Period (as defined in the 75th Amendment).  For avoidance of doubt, the consumption Period for such Video View Block commences upon the Effective Data hereof.




 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date indicated below.

 


		
	
TIME WARNER CABLE INC. (“TWC”)
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

 

	
 

By:  /s/ Jason Barbrow
	
 

By:  /s/ Peter E Kalan

	
 

Name: Jason Barbrow
	
 

Name:  Peter E. Kalan

	
 

Title:  Vice President
	
 

Title:  President & CEO

	
 

Date: May 5, 2015
	
 

Date: 5/14/15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, JR. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0250-CG-M

)

MONROE COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF 

MONROE, MONROE COUNTY 

COURTHOUSE, MONROE COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, LISA 

LYNAM McDONALD, JAMES 

McKINLEY, and JIMMY 

McKINLEY, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant 

Monroe County with respect to Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims, and in favor of 

Defendants Monroe County Sheriff’s Department, Monroe County Courthouse, and 

the Monroe County District Attorney with respect to all Plaintiff’s claims.

Therefore, all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Monroe County Sheriff’s 

Department, Monroe County Courthouse, and the Monroe County District Attorney 

are DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against 

Defendant Monroe County are DISMISSED with prejudice; and Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-00250-CG-M Document 48 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

remaining state law claims against Defendant Monroe County and the remaining 

individual defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00250-CG-M Document 48 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2060

___________ B. J. G., by and through her next friend * Elizabeth McCray, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. St. Charles County Sheriff; Francis * Howell School District; Juvenile * [UNPUBLISHED] Justice Center, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 4, 2010 Filed: November 9, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Elizabeth McCray, on behalf of her minor child B.J.G., appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ac tion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon car eful de novo review, seeCarter v. Arkansas , 392 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons the-2- district court stated. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot appellee Francis Howell School District’s motion to strike McCray’s reply brief.

______________________________
#### Terry COLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN; Warden David Justice, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-41180.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Marcia Gail Shein, Law Office of Marcia G. Shein, Decatur, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*410Paul E. Ñaman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terry Coley was convicted of conspiracy to possess drugs with intent to distribute and possession of drugs with intent to distribute and sentenced to serve 188 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge this conviction and sentence, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his fugitive status prevented him from timely pursuing § 2255 relief. He also presents argument on the merits of his sentencing claims.

Coley has not shown that the district court erred in determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed as a § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001); *Cox v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr.,*911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir.1990); *Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I.,*821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir.1987). Coley’s contention that he should be permitted to proceed under § 2241 due to his prior status as a fugitive is unpersuasive. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

           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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Matrix Energy Services Corporation (the "Company"), on Form
10-QSB, as amended, for the period ending September, 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Joe Bill Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.



/s/Joe Bill Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bill Bennett, Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2004



<PAGE>


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Matrix Energy Services Corporation (the "Company"), on Form
10-QSB, as amended, for the period ending September, 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Mark S. Zouvas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.



/s/Mark S. Zouvas
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Zouvas, Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2004
### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00555 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE C.D.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 Relator, C.D., seeks a petition for writ of mandamus directing the trial court to transfer the underlying proceedings involving a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship and for the dissolution of a marriage to Tarrant County, Texas. 2 “Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Frank Motor Co ., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. 2012)

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus under the style “ In the Interest of K.P., Minor Child ,” however, we have corrected the style of this original proceeding in order to comply with t he appellate rules. See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1.2

(orig. proceeding); see I n re Olshan Found. Repair Co ., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co ., 328 S.W.3d at 888; Walke r, 827 S.W.2d at 840. In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review . In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc ., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. C o ., 148 S.W.3d at
135

– 36. However, “[a]n erroneous denial of a mandatory venue transfer is subject to mandamus relief without a showing of an inadequate remedy by appeal.” In re Lovell

Osburn , 448 S.W.3d 616, 618

- 19 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Compton , 185 S.W.3d 526, 527 (Tex. App

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met h er burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36 ; see, e.g., Anderson v. Anderson , 282 S.W.3d 150, 155 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.); Chavez v. Chavez

, 269 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, no pet. ); Lindsey v. Lindsey , 564 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Austin 1978, no writ). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 25th day of N ovember , 2015

.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00414

- CR

Gary Leamon Taylor a/k/a Gary L.

Taylor

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 355th District Court

o f Hood County (CR13519 )

August 2, 2018

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

C hief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Estac L. LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-5126.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2008.

*135Kevin C. Danielson, Leena Alam, Scott Woodward, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Estae L. Love, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his “Motion for Reversal of Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,” in which he sought coram nobis relief. He challenged sentences imposed in 2000 for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), arguing that the sentences violated *Appreudi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He also argued that the total term of incarceration imposed of 146 years constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The district court concluded that the defendant could not challenge his sentences through a petition for a writ of coram nobis. We affirm.

“As courts have explained, a prisoner may not challenge a sentence or conviction for which he is currently in custody through a writ of coram nobis.” *United States v. Torres,*282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.2002). On appeal, the defendant argues that the district court erroneously reached its decision on constitutional grounds rather than statutory grounds, and that § 924(c) creates a separate off fense and is not a sentencing factor. Because the defendant is still in custody and is challenging the sentences he is currently serving, the district court did not err in denying relief.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
<PAGE> 17

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11

                                                                (Unaudited)


                                 C.M. CORP.
                                 ----------

                       INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                       ------------------------------
                 FOR THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
                 ------------------------------------------

               (Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)



                                    Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                         June 30,            June 30,
                                    ------------------   ----------------
                                      1997      1996      1997      1996
                                     -------  --------   -------  -------

Net income (loss) ............       $    11   $     7   $    22  $   (20)
                                     =======   =======   =======  =======

Total common shares ..........         1,000     1,000     1,000    1,000
                                     =======   =======   =======  =======

Income (loss) per common share       $    11   $     7   $    22  $   (20)
                                     =======   =======   =======  =======
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2321 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, 

Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship 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 Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program 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 RELATED PROGRAMS, EISENHOWER EX5 CHANGE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:08 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2321.IH H2321

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2321 IH

1 able for Related Programs, Eisenhower Exchange Fellow2 ship Program for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS