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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2108 

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Salaries and Expenses 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 Independent Agencies, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Salaries and Expenses 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, CONSUMER PROD5 UCT SAFETY COMMISSION, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Independent Agencies, Consumer Product Safety 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2108 IH

1 Commission, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $127,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Robert McCullaugh, Appellant, v Richard DeSimone, as Associate Counsel for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 306]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision calculating the length of petitioner’s prison sentence.

In October 1998, petitioner was sentenced upon his conviction of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Fetitioner’s judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal *(People v McCullough,*283 AD2d 988 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 941 [2001]). In calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision utilized consecutive prison terms of 772 to 15 years for each of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and a concurrent prison term of 372 to 7 years for the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, as set forth in the sentence and commitment order. Fetitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding, arguing that the consecutive sentences set forth in the sentence and commitment order are inconsistent with the sentence pronounced by the sentencing court. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s application, and this appeal ensued.

The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is “conclusively bound” by the terms of the sentence and commitment order and, in this case, there is no dispute that its calculation of petitioner’s sentence is consistent therewith *(Middleton v State of New York,*54 AD2d 450, 452 [1976], *affd*43 NY2d 678 [1977]; *see Matter of He’ron v Department of Corr. Servs.,*100 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 858 [2013]; *see also Matter of Reed v Fischer,*79 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2010]). Fetitioner’s claim that the sentence and commitment order is not consistent with the sentencing court’s intention *1012must be pursued through appropriate proceedings before that court *(see Matter of Mingo v Fischer,*92 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 801 [2012]; *People v Gibson,*278 AD2d 669, 670 [2000]; *see generally People ex rel. McLeod v New York State Div. of Parole,*193 AD2d 942, 944 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 655 [1993]). Accordingly, we affirm.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2477 

To amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to permit qualified law 

enforcement officers, qualified retired law enforcement officers, and persons not prohibited by State law from carrying a concealed firearm 

to carry a firearm, and to discharge a firearm in defense of self or 

others, in a school zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2023 

Mr. WEBER of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to permit 

qualified law enforcement officers, qualified retired law 

enforcement officers, and persons not prohibited by State 

law from carrying a concealed firearm to carry a firearm, 

and to discharge a firearm in defense of self or others, 

in a school zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Against School 

5 Shootings Act’’ or the ‘‘PASS Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2477 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF FIREARMS IN SCHOOL ZONES BY QUALI2 FIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, QUALI3 FIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFI4 CERS, AND PERSONS NOT PROHIBITED BY 

5 STATE LAW FROM CARRYING A CONCEALED 

6 FIREARM. 

7 Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2)(B)— 

10 (A) in clause (vi), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

11 end; 

12 (B) in clause (vii), by striking the period 

13 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

14 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(viii) by a person who, under section 926B or 

16 926C or the law of a State, may carry a concealed 

17 firearm.’’; and 

18 (2) in paragraph (3)(B)— 

19 (A) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

20 end; 

21 (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at 

22 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

23 (C) by adding at the end the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 2477 IH

1 ‘‘(v) by a person who, under section 926B or 

2 926C or the law of a State, may carry a concealed 

3 firearm.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2173 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2173

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 
  Offshore Safety and Environmental Enforcement 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 
  Offshore Safety and Environmental Enforcement 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 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, BUREAU OF SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT, 
              OFFSHORE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Offshore 
Safety and Environmental Enforcement for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $145,475,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rebecca Chusid, Respondent, v Daniel Silvera, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 233]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant *661appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated December 12, 2012, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing him to pay the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the sum of $11,735 per month commencing March 9, 2011.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the sum of $11,735 per month commencing March 9, 2011, and substituting therefor a provision directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff temporary maintenance in the sum of $9,157.45 per month commencing March 9, 2011; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) sets forth the substantive and procedural requirements for an award of temporary maintenance, addressing both the amount and the duration of the temporary award *(see Goncalves v Goncalves,*105 AD3d 901, 902 [2013]; *Woodford v Woodford,*100 AD3d 875, 876-877 [2012]; *Khaira v Khaira,*93 AD3d 194, 197-198 [2012]). A court may deviate from the presumptive award of temporary maintenance if that presumptive award is “unjust or inappropriate” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [2]; *see Goncalves v Goncalves,*105 AD3d at 902). In determining whether to deviate, the court must consider a broad range of factors *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [e] [1] [a]-[q]).

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, applied the statutory formulas in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a), determined that the “presumptive award” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5-a] [b] [8]) of temporary maintenance to be paid to the plaintiff was $11,735 per month, and directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff that sum, per month, commencing March 9, 2011.

An appellate court should rarely modify a pendente lite award, and then “ ‘only under exigent circumstances, such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires’ ” *(Malik v Malik,*66 AD3d 968, 968 [2009], quoting *Levakis v Levakis,*7 AD3d 678, 678 [2004]; *see Renga v Renga,*86 AD3d 634, 635 [2011]; *Silver v Silver,*46 AD3d 667, 668 [2007]). Here, the presumptive award of temporary maintenance, plus the plaintiffs monthly income, exceeds the plaintiff s alleged monthly expenses by $2,577.55. As the presumptive award of temporary maintenance exceeds the plaintiff s alleged monthly expenses *(see Fox v Fox,*290 AD2d 749, 750-752 [2002]; *662
      *Ritter v Ritter,*135 AD2d 421, 424 [1987]), we conclude that justice requires a reduction of the award. Accordingly, we reduce the award of temporary maintenance to the extent indicated.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Randy L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thierry D. NETTLES, Major at Lieber Correctional Institution, sued in his individual capacity; John Cusack, Doctor at Lieber Correctional Institution, sued in his individual capacity; John Does, Officers, sued in their individual capacities; Jane Garmany, Nurse at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, sued in her individual capacity; Robin Hancock, Health Counsel, sued in her individual capacity; Richard Frierson, Doctor at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, sued in his individual capacity; Brian R. Blanton, Doctor at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, sued in his individual capacity; Jim E. Page, Director-Hospital Administrator at Gilliam Psychiatric Hospital, sued in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.

Decided Dec. 27, 2007.

*564Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Randy L. Valentine appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Valentine v. Nettles,*No. 4:06-cv-02314-HMH, 2007 WL 2105856 (D.S.C. July 19, 2007). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, petitioner, v. ENERSYS DELAWARE, INC.

No. 10-422.

Feb. 22, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2237 

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

of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer 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 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EXECU5 TIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FI6 NANCIAL OFFICER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Executive OperVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:55 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2237.IH H2237

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2237 IH

1 ations, Office of the Chief Financial Officer for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $6,028,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2004-1579 DENNIS N. PIXTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. B&B PLASTICS, INC. (doing business as Gambler), Defendant-Appellee, and MICHAEL SURMAN and JOAN BRINGGER (as personal representatives of the estate of Jack Russell Bringger, III), Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in case no. 99-CV-6360, Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER The court notes that Dennis N. Pixton has not filed a status report since August 18, 2008. The court's July 20, 2006 and January 15, 2008 orders required Pixton to file a status report every 60 days. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) If Pixton does not file a status report within 21 days of the date of filing of this order, the appeal will be dismissed.(2) The briefing schedule remains stayed. If the appeal is not dismissed

pursuant to paragraph (1) above, Pixton is directed to file a status report every 60 days concerning the status of the related bankruptcy case and state how this appeal should proceed. FOR THE COURT 

# FEB 2 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT cc: Gayle E. Halligan, Esq. Richard C. Bagdasarian, Esq. FEB 2 6 2009 s17 JAWriUhthit.1 CLERK

2004-1579 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

FADDIS SANDERS, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0091-M 

 : 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commission of Social Security, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 JUDGMENT

 It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be 

entered in favor of Plaintiff Faddis Sanders and against 

Defendant Michael J. Astrue. 

 DONE this 5th day of August, 2010. 

 s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:10-cv-00091-M Document 21 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00440-CR

Humberto Martinez-Benitez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 158th District Court

of Denton County (F-2013-0158-B)

December 17, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(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/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
#### Glacial Aggregates LLC, Appellant, v Town of Yorkshire, Respondent.

Submitted March 30, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion by New York Construction Materials Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1063 TP 10-02366**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

SUSAN CONNELL, SUPERINTENDENT, ONEIDA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Anthony F. Shaheen, J.], entered October 1, 2010) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996).

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT
      32.1





SECTION
      906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATIONOF
      CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SS.1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quaterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
      Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.


*May
              14, 2007*
            
            */s/
                David Duquette**Name:
                David Duquette**Title:
                Chief Executive Officer and*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by Company
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn P. Barrera, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 687]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered on or about September 14, 2006, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
[907 NE2d 267, 879 NYS2d 354]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Ronald Moye, Respondent.

Argued January 15, 2009;

decided February 19, 2009

*744APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District*Attorney, New York City *(Mark Dwyer*of counsel), for appellant.

*Anthony L. Ricco,*New York City, and *Steven Z. Legón*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

An attorney may not “mak[e] himself an unsworn witness” by “supporting his case by his own” or anyone else’s “veracity and position” *(People v Lovello,*1 NY2d 436, 439 [1956]). While we do not fault the prosecutor for remarks made at sidebar, in his summation he concededly became an unsworn witness by “vouching] for the witness with the most favorable testimony for the prosecution by reference to his own pretrial conduct and . . . credibility by virtue of his position in the District Attorney’s office” *(People v Moye,*52 AD3d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2008]). We agree with the majority below that the prosecutor’s vouching remarks in summation may not be excused as fair response to defense provocation. Further, they were prejudicial to defendant, and, in this case, the trial court’s limiting instruction failed to eliminate the prejudicial effect.

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.