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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3592 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3592

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant 
             Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ROBERT WILSON COLLINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``First 
Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate December 16, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3592

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant 
             Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building''.
```
97-423.

#### State ex rel. Feher v. McGee.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent. Answer treated as motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Order filed, July 08, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00432-CR

____________

AMOS SIFUENTES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1419550

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due June 29, 2015. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Arlene Webb, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
No. 4816.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### CROWLEY-PERRIN CO., LTD. vs. G. P. & L. J. DOBARD AND PURITY VALLEY WINE AND LIQUOR CELLAR.

O. S. Livaudais for plaintiff and appellant.

Legier & Gleason for defendant and appellee.

DUEOUR, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover the price of a horse alleged to have been sold to the defendants, who were doing business under the name of the “Purity Valley Wine and Liquor Cellar.”

The defense is that the defendants were not interested in the business at the time, and that the horse was bought by them for Paul E. Martin, who was doing business under the foregoing name.

The testimony is conflicting.

Plaintiffs’ is to the effect that the horse was sold to defendants.

The latter say that they bought the horse for their brother-in-law, Paul E. Martin, who was the owner of the *13Purity Valley Wine and Liquor Cellar, from whom they subsequently bought the business, and that, at the time of purchase, they so informed the plaintiff'.

November 29, 1909.

They are corroborated by checks given on the same occasion for the price of another horse which are to the order of Crowley-Perrin Co., Ltd., and signed by the “Purity Valley Wine and Liquor Cellar, per Paul E. Martin. ’ ’

■The conclusions of fact of the trial Judge, who rejected the plaintiff’s demand, appear to be reasonable.

We fail to see any relevancy in the Act No. 94 of 189.'i, invoked by plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Georgitsi Realty, LLC, Appellant, v Penn-Star Insurance Company, Respondent.

Decided January 15, 2013

*See*702 F3d 152.

*1003Certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 226

Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library and 
                    the Joint Committee on Printing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2019

 Ms. Lofgren submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library and 
                    the Joint Committee on Printing.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE 
              LIBRARY AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

    (a) Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.--The following 
Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee of Congress on the 
Library, to serve with the chair of the Committee on House 
Administration and the chair of the Subcommittee on the Legislative 
Branch of the Committee on Appropriations:
            (1) Mr. Butterfield.
            (2) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
            (3) Mr. Loudermilk.
    (b) Joint Committee on Printing.--The following Members are hereby 
elected to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of 
the Committee on House Administration:
            (1) Mr. Raskin.
            (2) Mrs. Davis of California.
            (3) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
            (4) Mr. Loudermilk.
                                 <all>
```
97-622.

#### State ex rel. Blankenship v. Ross Correctional Inst.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
**EXHIBIT 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**The following entities, unless otherwise indicated, are wholly-owned direct or indirectsubsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 2006:         State or Country  Name of Organization     1. Baker Construction, Inc. Delaware2. Baker Global Project Services, Inc. Delaware3. Baker Holding Corporation Delaware4. Baker/OTS, Inc. Delaware5. International Pipeline Services, Inc. Delaware6. Michael Baker International, Inc. Delaware7. Baker Engineering, Inc. Illinois8. Michael Baker Jr. Company Nevada9. Michael Baker Architects/Engineers, P.C. New Jersey10. Baker Engineering NY, Inc. New York11. Baker Environmental, Inc. Pennsylvania12. Baker Heavy & Highway, Inc. Pennsylvania13. Baker Mellon Stuart Construction, Inc. Pennsylvania14. Michael Baker Global, Inc. Pennsylvania15. Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Pennsylvania16. Baker/MO Services, Inc. Texas17. Vermont General Insurance Company Vermont18. Baker Energy International, Ltd. Cayman Islands19. Baker O&M International, Ltd. Cayman Islands20. Baker/OTS International, Inc. Cayman Islands21. Overseas Technical Services (Middle East) Ltd. Cayman Islands22. Michael Baker de Mexico S.A. de C.V. Mexico23. Baker/OTS Ltd. United Kingdom24. OTS International Training Services Ltd. United Kingdom25. Overseas Technical Services (Harrow) Ltd. United Kingdom26. SD Forty-Five Ltd. United Kingdom27. OTS Finance and Management Ltd. Vanuatu28. Overseas Technical Services International, Ltd. Vanuatu
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 239 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to remove the motion 

to recommit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Mr. RICHMOND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

remove the motion to recommit. 

1 Resolved, That rule XIX of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by striking clause 2 (pro3 viding for the motion to recommit) and by redesignating 

4 clauses 3 and 4 as clauses 2 and 3, respectively. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,950)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         104,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                (69,081)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         29,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,183
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,331
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     80
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 80
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        80
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIELLA KERTESZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BOB FERGUSON, Attorney General of 

Washington State, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-35573 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00372-RAJ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Gabriella Kertesz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Bob Ferguson, the Attorney 

General of Washington State, violated her civil rights in connection with a state 

law that concerns medical consent forms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-35573 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). 

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kertesz’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because Kertesz failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate

Article III standing. See Arakaki v. Lingle, 477 F.3d 1048, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (to 

establish standing, a plaintiff must allege that she “has suffered concrete injury, 

that there is a causal connection between [her] injury and the conduct complained 

of, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision”); Smelt v. 

County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673, 682 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The burden of showing that 

there is standing rests on the shoulders of the party asserting it.”).

We reject as without merit Kertesz’s contention, set forth in her

supplemental filing, that the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction divested this court of jurisdiction over the appeal. 

AFFIRMED.
[973 NE2d 1289, 950 NYS2d 515]

#### Illinois Union Insurance Company, Respondent, v Assurance Company of America, Appellant.

Decided June 28, 2012

*943APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Coughlin Duffy LLP,*New York City *(Robert W. Muilenburg*and *Steven D. Cantarutti*of counsel), for appellant.

*Hodgson Russ LLP,*Buffalo *(Kevin D. Szczepanski*and *Lisa Bauer*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

In this insurance coverage dispute, to which California law applies, plaintiff Illinois Union Insurance Company had a duty to defend the insured in the underlying action because Illinois Union did not “eliminate the possibility that the insured’s conduct falls within the coverage of the policy” *(Montrose Chem. Corp. v Superior Ct.,*6 Cal 4th 287, 301, 861 P2d 1153, 1161 [1993]). Under the circumstances of this case, however, we agree with Illinois Union that pursuant to equitable contribution principles, it is entitled to reimbursement from defendant Assurance Company of America for an equal share of the costs associated with Illinois Union’s defense of the claims in the underlying action.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grappeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

      <MULTIPLIER> 1

      <S>                           <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                        QUARTER
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
      <PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
      <CASH>                                  0
      <SECURITIES>                        2,000
      <RECEIVABLES>                           0
      <ALLOWANCES>                            0
      <INVENTORY>                             0
      <CURRENT ASSETS>                        0
      <PP&E>                                  0
      <DEPRECIATION>                          0
      <TOTAL ASSETS>                      2,000
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              77,368
      <BONDS>                                 0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
      <PREFERRED>                             0
      <COMMON>                            2,257
      <OTHER-SE>                        <77,625>
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        2,000
      <SALES>                                 0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
      <CGS>                                   0
      <TOTAL COSTS>                           0
      <OTHER EXPENSES>                        0
      <LOSS PROVISION>                        0
      <INTEREST EXPENSE>                      0
      <INCOME PRETAX>                         0
      <INCOME-TAX>                            0
      <INCOME CONTINUING>                     0
      <DISCONTINUED>                          0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
      <CHANGES>                               0
      <NET-INCOME>                            0
      <EPS-BASIC>                           0
      <EPS-DILUTED>                           0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-QSB FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH A LEGEND
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       7,010,894
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         398,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,999,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 40,659,511
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    107,600,287
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,729,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             171,109,949
<DEPOSITS>                                 145,199,736
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,282,945
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            374,964
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,860,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,391,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             171,109,949
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,330,692
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              620,925
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               141,532
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,093,149
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,427,576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,555,630
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,537,519
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,503,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,030
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      88,030
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    73,530
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.28
<LOANS-NON>                                    837,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   124,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              3,826,072
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,649,815
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  145,713
<RECOVERIES>                                    74,907
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,729,009
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,729,009
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-05987; No. 333-59941; No. 33-62887; and No.
33-69306) of our report dated March 16, 2001 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Michael
Baker Corporation, which is incorporated by reference in Michael Baker
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 23, 2001
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Useable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation

                        On June 21, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13159 (the “order”) blocking property and interests in property of the Government of the Russian Federation that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons that are directly related to the implementation of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, dated February 18, 1993, and related contracts and agreements (collectively, the “HEU Agreements”). The HEU Agreements allow for the downblending of highly enriched uranium derived from nuclear weapons to low enriched uranium for peaceful commercial purposes. The order invoked the authority,                         *inter alia*, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.)*                        and declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation.                              ( print page 29392)    

                        The national emergency declared on June 21, 2000, must continue beyond June 21, 2009, to provide continued protection from attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process for the property and interests in property of the Government of the Russian Federation that are directly related to the implementation of the HEU Agreements and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of weapons-usable fissile material in the  territory of the Russian Federation. This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E9-14675

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard C. Wiedeman, Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 805 (2012)].