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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3608 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3608

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the credit for 
 qualified fuel cell motor vehicles by maintaining the level of credit 
 for vehicles placed in service after 2009 and by allowing the credit 
                   for certain off-highway vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2010

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the credit for 
 qualified fuel cell motor vehicles by maintaining the level of credit 
 for vehicles placed in service after 2009 and by allowing the credit 
                   for certain off-highway vehicles.

    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 ``Fuel Cell Industrial Vehicle Jobs 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED FUEL CELL MOTOR VEHICLES.

    (a) Maintenance of $8,000 Credit After 2009.--Subparagraph (A) of 
section 30B(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to new 
qualified fuel cell motor vehicle credit) is amended by striking 
``($4,000 in the case of a vehicle placed in service after December 31, 
2009)''.
    (b) Credit for Certain Off-Highway Vehicles.--Subsection (b) of 
section 30B of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(4) Special rules for certain off-highway vehicles.--
        Solely for purposes of this subsection--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `motor vehicle' 
                includes any vehicle which is manufactured primarily 
                for use in carrying or towing loads or materials for 
                commercial or industrial purposes, whether or not on 
                public streets, roads, and highways and regardless of 
                the type of load or material carried or towed. The 
                preceding sentence shall not include any vehicle 
                operated exclusively on a rail or rails and any vehicle 
                operated primarily for recreational purposes.
                    ``(B) Certain standards not to apply.--Subsection 
                (h)(10) shall not apply to a vehicle which is a motor 
                vehicle solely by reason of subparagraph (A).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to vehicles placed in service after December 31, 2009, in taxable 
years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            BKF CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of BKF Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Glenn A. Aigen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 (including subsections (a) (b) and (c) thereof), as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.
                                          /s/ GLENN A. AIGEN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Glenn A. Aigen
                                          Chief Financial Officer

March 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus BOBBY FORRESTER SPOONE, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-178, CA-02-3039-6-13) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Forrester Spoone, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Forrester Spoone, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spoone has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Spoone’s motion to consolidate the matter with another of Spoone’s pending appeals, No. 02-7480. 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. DISMISSED
null

2015-02-11

114.973625

eng - Argued: 2015-02-11. Docket number: 1-13-2319WC
# NIMH Pages About Health Disparities

----

### Latest Science News About Health Disparities

Disparities in Psychotic Disorder Diagnoses and Other Negative Health Outcomes
January 3, 2024

NIH Launches Community-Led Research Program to Advance Health Equity
September 28, 2023

Dr. Lisa Bowleg Named James S. Jackson Memorial Award Winner
July 28, 2023

----

### Latest Video and Audio About Health Disparities

Hidden Histories: Racial Injustice at St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital

Director’s Innovation Speaker Series: Changing Minds & Advancing Lines: Why We Must Keep Pushing for Mental Health Equity

2023 NIMH James S. Jackson Memorial Award Lecture: The Critical Health Equity Imperative: Five Insights About Reducing Health Inequities From My Research With U.S. Black LGB People and Heterosexual Men

----

### Latest Director's Messages About Health Disparities

Going Global: Advancing Mental Health Research Around the World
                                                          By  on                November 15, 2023

Supporting the Mental Health Needs of Hispanic and Latino Youth
                                                          By Joshua Gordon on                July 10, 2023

Supporting Kids’ Mental Health During COVID-19
                                                          By Guest Author on                September 16, 2021
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THOMAS J. LENART,

 Appellant,

v.

WOODWAY COTTON CROSSING

HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC.,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00117-CV

Appeal from

74th District Court

of McLennan County, Texas

(TC # 2014-2019-3)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. Finding that the Appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

On May 28, 2015, the Clerk notified Appellant that his brief was past due and no motion 

for extension of time had been filed. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended to 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responded within ten days and 

showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(a)(1). Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time in which to file the brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution.

July 8, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3554 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3554

To direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules prohibiting 
  deceptive advertising of abortion services, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 30, 2010

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules prohibiting 
  deceptive advertising of abortion services, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Stop Deceptive Advertising for 
Women's Services Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF ABORTION SERVICES.

    (a) Conduct Prohibited.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
promulgate rules to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or 
practice, any person from advertising with the intent to deceptively 
create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion 
services if such person does not provide abortion services.
    (b) Enforcement.--The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce the 
rules promulgated under subsection (a) as if a violation of such rules 
were a violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
(15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)). The Commission shall enforce such rules in the 
same manner and by the same means, powers, and duties as though all 
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this 
section.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services'' 
        means providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to 
        terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such 
        procedures.
            (2) Advertise.--The term ``advertise'' means offering of 
        goods or services to the public, regardless of whether such 
        goods or services are offered for payment or result in a 
        profit.
            (3) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
FILE COPY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

NO. 15-0285

IN THE INTEREST OF K.W. AND

P.W., CHILDREN

-

FILED IN COURT OF Av ^ Atn . Van Zandt County, 12th Court .V Appeals Di. '

12th District.

JCATHYSI. l\JSK, CI May 29, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

••••••••••

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 9th day ofJuly, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3562 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3562

  To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 
          Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 30, 2010

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 
          Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park.

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

SECTION 1. HOMESTEAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) In General.--The first section of the Act of March 19, 1936 (16 
U.S.C. 450u) is amended by striking ``designated'' and all that follows 
through the end and inserting ``designated the `Homestead National 
Historical Park'.''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the unit of the National 
Park System known as ``The Homestead National Monument of America'' 
shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Homestead National 
Historical Park''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul A. Osborne, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 255 

Promoting awareness of motorcycle profiling and encouraging collaboration 

and communication with the motorcycle community and law enforcement 

officials to prevent instances of profiling. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2019 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. POCAN, and Mr. PETERSON) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Promoting awareness of motorcycle profiling and encouraging 

collaboration and communication with the motorcycle 

community and law enforcement officials to prevent instances of profiling. 

Whereas motorcycle ridership has continued to increase over 

time with registrations growing from 3,826,373 in 1997 

to 8,600,936 in 2015; 

Whereas, as of August 2016, the ongoing National Motorcycle Profiling Survey 2016, conducted by the Motorcycle 

Profiling Project, found that approximately 1⁄2 of the motorcyclists surveyed felt that they had been profiled by 

law enforcement at least once; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 255 IH 

Whereas motorcycle profiling means the illegal use of the fact 

that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle related apparel as a factor in deciding to stop and question, 

take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or vehicle with or without legal basis under the Constitution 

of the United States; 

Whereas complaints surrounding motorcycle profiling have 

been cited in all 50 States; 

Whereas nationwide protests to raise awareness and combat 

motorcycle profiling have been held in multiple States; 

Whereas in 2011, Washington signed into law legislation 

stating that the criminal justice training commission 

shall ensure that issues related to motorcycle profiling 

are addressed in basic law enforcement training and offered to in-service law enforcement officers in conjunction 

with existing training regarding profiling; 

Whereas reported incidents of motorcycle profiling have 

dropped approximately 90 percent in the State of Washington since the 2011 legislation was signed into law; and 

Whereas in the spring of 2016, Maryland became the second 

State to pass a law addressing the issue of motorcycle 

profiling: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) promotes increased public awareness on the 

3 issue of motorcycle profiling; 

4 (2) encourages collaboration and communica5 tion with the motorcycle community and law enforce6 ment to engage in efforts to end motorcycle 

7 profiling; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 255 IH 

1 (3) urges State law enforcement officials to in2 clude statements condemning motorcycle profiling in 

3 written policies and training materials. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
*Tuesday, February 18, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

96-452.

#### State v. Davie.

Trumbull App. No. 92-T-4693. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to remove portion of record in order to duplicate exhibits and motion to produce/transmit record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and hereby are, denied, effective February 17, 1997.

Douglas. J., dissents.

Pfeifer, J., not participating.
#### Estate of Gertrude Steingart, Deceased, by Diane Steingart, as Personal Representative, Respondent, v Barbara Hoffman, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 29]

*466Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered July 13, 2005, which, upon the prior grant of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on her claim for partition and sale of the cooperative apartment owned by the parties as tenants-in-common, inter alia, ordered the apartment’s partition and sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The allegations, pleading grounds for partition and sale of the subject apartment, were admitted by defendant in her verified answer. In any case, the necessity of a sale as opposed to physical partition of the apartment is borne out by the record, which discloses that the parties fundamentally disagree upon issues relating to the maintenance and repair of the apartment and, accordingly, that physical partition of the premises would have resulted in great prejudice to both owners *(see*RPAPL 901 [1]; *Ferguson v McLoughlin,*184 AD2d 294 [1992], *appeal dismissed*80 NY2d 972 [1992]).

Defendant’s motion to amend her counterclaims was properly denied. Indeed, the proposed amendments, to add claims for tortious interference with contract and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, were palpably without merit and should not be reasserted. No claim lies for tortious interference with contract because plaintiff, in procuring the alleged breach, was justifiably attempting to preserve her interest in the apartment *(see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney,*88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]), and no claim lies for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage because, as noted, defendant has no tenable claim that plaintiff acted for the sole purpose of harming her, or that “wrongful means” were utilized by plaintiff *(see Snyder v Sony Music Entertainment,*252 AD2d 294, 299-300 [1999]).

Defendant’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Buckley, PJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
97-767.

#### State v. Bowen.

Licking App. No. 95CA22. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KERR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 29, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of K.L.C., J.K.C., and L.E.C., Appellant

V.

No. 04-15-00149-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 14658B

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no costs

be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as

indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00149-CV

In the Interest of K.L.C., J.K.C., and L.E.C.

v.

(NO. 14658B IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KERR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CLERK'S RECORD $94.00 INDIGENT DECLARATION OF INDIGENCE

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
STEPHANIE LARSEN, CSR, RPR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

33rd Judicial District

P.O. Box 554 ** Marble Falls, TX 78654

(512)715-5230

reporter33@dcourt.org

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

COURT REPORTER EXTENSION REQUEST 

July 10, 2015 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: 03-15-00420-CR Burnet County Cause No. 42765 

 Texas v. Karra Trichele Allen

To Whom It May Concern: 

Please consider this an extension request as necessary for the 

reporter's record in the above-named case. 

I have received notice of appeal, a Designation of Matters to 

be Included, and have begun transcription of the reporter's 

record. This case concluded on 6/02/15 after a two-week jury 

trial. Since that time I have been in trial for three 

additional jury trials. 

This record is between 15-20 volumes, approximately 2000 pages 

and 400 exhibits. I am respectfully requesting a 60-day 

extension. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact 

me. 

Thank you, 

/sl/Stephanie Larsen