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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 93 

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in administering 

section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in 

administering section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1936, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICAN VESSELS OF 

4 GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND CERTAIN 

5 CARGOES. 

6 Paragraph (2) of section 901(b) of the Merchant Ma7 rine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b)(2)), is amended 

8 to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

10 the Secretary of Transportation shall have the sole respon-
2 

•S 93 IS

1 sibility for designating a program as subject to the re2 quirements of this subsection. Each department or agency 

3 that has responsibility for a program that is designated 

4 by the Secretary pursuant to the preceding sentence shall 

5 administer such program in accordance with regulations 

6 promulgated by the Secretary. 

7 ‘‘(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall— 

8 ‘‘(i) conduct an annual review of the adminis9 tration of a program designated pursuant to sub10 paragraph (A) as subject to the requirements of this 

11 subsection; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) submit an annual report to Congress con13 taining the results of the review described in clause 

14 (i). 

15 ‘‘(C) The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe 

16 regulations— 

17 ‘‘(i) to carry out the provisions of this sub18 section; and 

19 ‘‘(ii) to provide penalties and sanctions for vio20 lation of this subsection.’’. 

21 SEC. 2. CONFORMING CARGO PREFERENCE YEAR TO FED22 ERAL FISCAL YEAR. 

23 Section 901b of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 

24 U.S.C. App. 1241f) is amended— 

25 (1) in subsection (a)— 
3 

•S 93 IS

1 (A) by striking paragraph (2); and 

2 (B) in paragraph (1)— 

3 (i) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘(a)’’; and 

5 (ii) by striking ‘‘specified in sub6 section (b)’’ and inserting ‘‘exported as de7 scribed in subsection (b) in a fiscal year’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) in subsection (c)(2)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘calendar’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘fiscal’’; and 

12 (B) by striking ‘‘for 12 month periods 

13 commencing April 1, 1986’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

14 12-month period beginning on April 1 of each 

15 year before 2003, the 18-month period begin16 ning on April 1, 2003, and each 12-month pe17 riod beginning on October 1 of 2004 and each 

18 year thereafter’’. 

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2021

No. 04-19-00827-CV

Les GRIFFIN and Molly Griffin,

Appellants

v.

PST INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19541C

Honorable Susan Harris, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was due on October 5, 2020. Neither the brief nor a motion for 

extension of time has been filed. We therefore ORDER appellants to file their brief in this court 

no later than 10 days from the date of this order, along with a written response reasonably 

explaining: (1) their failure to timely file the brief; and (2) why appellee is not significantly 

injured by appellants’ failure to timely file a brief.

If appellants fail to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, this appeal 

will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c).

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,565
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             442
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,476
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,730
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         105,339
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           103,969
<LOANS>                                      1,023,658
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,210,198
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,056,030
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,426
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,251
<LONG-TERM>                                     55,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,735
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,210,198
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 36,492
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,861
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                41,353
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              22,660
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,361
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,992
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       88
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,209
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,437
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,437
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.48
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,126
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,253
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       87
<RECOVERIES>                                       111
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,365
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,365
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         12,943


</TABLE>
#### State v. McMillan

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 474

No. 133P07

Def’s PWC to Review Decision of COA (COA06-201)

Denied 05/03/07
S. 4046

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To extend oversight and accountability related to United States reconstruction funds

and efforts in Iraq by extending the termination date of the Office of the Special

Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

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 ‘‘Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF THE TERMINATION DATE FOR THE OFFICE

OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ

RECONSTRUCTION.

Section 3001(o) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan,

2004 (Public Law 108–106; 117 Stat. 1238; 5 U.S.C. App., note

to section 8G of Public Law 95–452), as amended by section 1054(b)

of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(o) TERMINATION.—(1)(A) The Office of the Inspector General

shall terminate 10 months after 80 percent of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq Relief and

Reconstruction Fund have been expended.

‘‘(B) For purposes of calculating the termination of the Office

of the Inspector General under this subsection, any United States

funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2006

for the reconstruction of Iraq, irrespective of the designation of

such funds, shall be deemed to be amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.

‘‘(2) The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction shall,

prior to the termination of the Office of the Special Inspector

General under paragraph (1), prepare a final forensic audit report
S. 4046—2

on all funds deemed to be amounts appropriated or otherwise made

available to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. VINCENT L. TAYLOR, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-99-13838 DECISION

On December 31, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Issuing a Bad Check, a felony.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was advised of his right to be represented by counsel. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and *54Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1202 

CAF 10-01670 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ALAYSHA M., CHLOE M., 

DAJUAN M., ELIJAH M., AND KAYLIA M. 

-------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

AGUSTIN M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BARBARA L. WIDRIG, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

RICHARD L. SOTIR, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, JAMESTOWN, FOR

ALAYSHA M., CHLOE M., DAJUAN M., ELIJAH M., AND KAYLIA M. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Judith S. Claire, J.), entered July 15, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things,

adjudged that respondent had abused the subject children.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act

article 10, respondent father contends that Family Court erred in

finding that he derivatively abused the children who are the subject

of this proceeding, based on the finding that he had severely abused

one of his other children, resulting in the child’s death. We note at

the outset that the father improperly appealed from an order

dispensing with the requirement that reasonable efforts be made to

reunite the father with the subject children rather than from the

correct subsequent order of fact-finding and disposition. 

Nevertheless, we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal

as valid and deem the appeal as properly taken from the subsequent

order (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Morgan P., 60 AD3d 1362).

Contrary to the father’s contention, the finding of derivative

abuse is appropriate in view of the nature and severity of the abuse

of the child who died (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; Matter of

Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 373-374, cert denied 540 US 1059; Matter of

Keara MM., 84 AD3d 1442, 1444; Matter of Nicole H., 12 AD3d 182, 183).

Inasmuch as the father has surrendered his parental rights with

respect to the subject children, his further contention that the court

erred in granting petitioner’s motion seeking a finding pursuant to
-2- 1202 

CAF 10-01670 

Family Court Act § 1039-b (a) that it is no longer required to make

reasonable efforts to reunite the subject children with the father is

now moot (see Matter of Randi NN., 80 AD3d 1086, 1087, lv denied 16

NY3d 712; see also Matter of Jaime S., 32 AD3d 1198). The exception

to the mootness doctrine does not apply under these circumstances (see

Randi NN., 80 AD3d at 1087; Matter of Simeon F., 58 AD3d 1081, 1081-

1082, lv denied 12 NY3d 709). We have reviewed the father’s remaining

contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### State v. Chivers

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 275

No. 649P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-134)

Denied 01/25/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,425,581
<SECURITIES>                                74,021,349
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,297,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,779
<INVENTORY>                                 12,596,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           102,319,554
<PP&E>                                      38,407,829
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,967,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             134,660,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,005,840
<BONDS>                                      5,207,092
<COMMON>                                       162,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 108,615,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               134,660,007
<SALES>                                     68,956,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,956,758
<CGS>                                       49,771,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,281,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,012,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,711,637
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,539,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,172,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                  38,584
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,210,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
1

Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Garza CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

---- THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CEASAR JULIUS GARZA,

Defendant and Ap pellant. C078544

(Super. Ct. No. CRF145554)

Appointed counsel for defendant Cea sar Julius Garza asked this court to review

the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 ( Wende ).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a

disposition more favorable to defendant, w e will affirm the judgment.

I

A felony complaint charged defendant with stalking in violation of a court order

(Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)

-- count 1 ) 1 and stalk ing (§ 646.9, subd. (a)

-- count 2 ).

D efendant pleaded no contest to count 1 in return for the dismissal of count 2 and a

stipulated three

- year state prison sentence. A s a factual basis to support the plea, the

parties stipulated that between December 15 , 2013 and November 12, 2014, defendant

continuously called and harassed the victim and came to her home several times in a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

manner that indicated a credible threat to the victim. When he did so, he was under a

restraining order to stay away from the victi m due to a prior incident involving her.

The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 2 , sentenced

defendant to the stipulated term of three year s in prison

, awarded 184 days of presentence

custody credit (92 actual days and 92 conduct d ays) , and ordered defendant to pay a $300

restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40

court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov.

Code, § 70373).

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable

issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

Having undertaken an examinati on of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

Mauro, J.

We concur:

/S/

Nicholson, Acting P. J.

/S/

But z, J.
#### Keith A. COUSINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MOVIE GALLERY, INC., formerly doing business as Game Crazy, formerly doing business as M.G. Midwest, formerly doing business as M.G.A., Inc., formerly doing business as Moovies, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Asset Management, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Finance, Inc., formerly doing business as M.G.A. Realty 1, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Licensing, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Promotions, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery Services, Inc., formerly doing business as Movie Gallery US, Inc., formerly doing business as MovieGallery.com, Inc., formerly doing business as Video Library, Inc., formerly doing business *782as Video Update, Inc.; Hollywood Entertainment Corporation; M.G. Digital, LLC; M.G.A. Realty I, LLC; MG Automation LLC; Movie Gallery US, LLC, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 09-2386.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 13, 2010.

Romaine S. Scott, III, Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. Michael A. Con-dyles, Peter J. Barrett, Jeremy S. Williams, Kutak Rock LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keith A. Cousins appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders holding him in contempt for filing a lawsuit in violation of the releases contained within the Order of Confirmation of the Appellees’ Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan, and denying reconsideration of that order.* Our review of the record and the briefs filed by the parties discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the bankruptcy court. *Cousins v. Movie Gallery, Inc.,*No. 07-33849 (Bankr.E.D. Va. Sept. 25 & Nov. 17, 2009). 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.*

*

 We previously granted the parties’ petition for permission to appeal directly to this court from the bankruptcy court. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001(f)(2)(B).
<TABLE> <S> <C>



       <ARTICLE>5
       <MULTIPLIER> 1,000



<S>                                                                 <C>
       <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                12-MOS
       <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            MAY-31-1999
       <PERIOD-START>                                               JUN-01-1998
       <PERIOD-END>                                                 MAY-31-1999
       <CASH>                                                           50,599
       <SECURITIES>                                                          0
       <RECEIVABLES>                                                   417,106
       <ALLOWANCES>                                                     20,466
       <INVENTORY>                                                           0
       <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                481,560
       <PP&E>                                                          200,162
       <DEPRECIATION>                                                   96,627
       <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  726,908
       <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           362,949
       <BONDS>                                                               0
       <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
       <PREFERRED>                                                           0
       <COMMON>                                                            364
       <OTHER-SE>                                                      263,718
       <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    726,908
       <SALES>                                                               0
       <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              1,387,727
       <CGS>                                                                 0
       <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   809,750
       <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
       <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
       <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                7,613
       <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  19,783
       <INCOME-TAX>                                                      6,331
       <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              13,452
       <DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
       <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
       <CHANGES>                                                             0
       <NET-INCOME>                                                     13,452
       <EPS-BASIC>                                                       .37
       <EPS-DILUTED>                                                       .37






















</TABLE>