alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elvin Munoz, Appellant.

Submitted February 11, 2013;

decided February 14, 2013

*1047Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 657 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 657

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require all 
   transcripts and recordings submitted during a closed hearing of a 
  committee be made available to all Members on the same schedule and 
                                 basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

     Mr. Burchett (for himself, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
 DesJarlais, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Gonzalez of 
 Ohio, Mr. Guest, Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Mr. Riggleman, Mr. David 
  P. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. John W. Rose of Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff of 
Tennessee, Mr. Roy, Mr. Hagedorn, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Olson, Mr. Curtis, Mr. 
    Weber of Texas, Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Guthrie) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require all 
   transcripts and recordings submitted during a closed hearing of a 
  committee be made available to all Members on the same schedule and 
                                 basis.

Whereas all Members of the House of Representatives are duly elected by their 
        constituents; and
Whereas each Member of the House of Representatives, by virtue of holding their 
        elected office, is cleared to view and hear sensitive classified 
        information: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``LEAC Transcripts Resolution 
(Let Everyone Access a Copy of Transcripts Resolution)''.

SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS.

    That rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``Equal access
    ``7. Any transcripts of proceedings, audio or video recordings of 
proceedings, written testimony, and any supporting information 
submitted during a classified or otherwise closed hearing, briefing, 
deposition, interview or other official meeting of any standing, ad 
hoc, or select committees shall be made available to all Members on the 
same schedule and basis as it is made available to members of the 
committee before which the proceedings occurred or to which the 
information or testimony was submitted.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3306 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require oil polluters to 

pay the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2010 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. SANDERS) 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 require 

oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Big Oil Bailout Pre5 vention Trust Fund Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND. 

7 (a) LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES.—Section 

8 9509(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3306 IS

1 to expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) 

2 is amended— 

3 (1) by striking paragraph (2); 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘EXPENDITURES’’ and all that 

5 follows through ‘‘Amounts in’’ and inserting ‘‘EX6 PENDITURES.—Amounts in’’; and 

7 (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through 

8 (F) as paragraphs (1) through (6), respectively, and 

9 indenting appropriately. 

10 (b) AUTHORITY TO BORROW.—Section 9509(d) of 

11 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to authority 

12 to borrow for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) is amend13 ed— 

14 (1) by striking paragraph (2); 

15 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para16 graph (2); and 

17 (3) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)— 

18 (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

19 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 

20 subparagraph (B). 

21 SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENTS. 

22 Section 1012 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

23 U.S.C. 2712) is amended by adding at the end the fol24 lowing: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3306 IS

1 ‘‘(l) ADVANCE PAYMENTS.—The President shall pro2 mulgate regulations that allow advance payments to be 

3 made from the Fund to States and political subdivisions 

4 of States for actions taken to prepare for and mitigate 

5 substantial threats from the discharge of oil.’’. 

6 SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

7 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

8 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, 

9 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

10 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

11 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

12 by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, pro13 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

14 vote on passage. 

15 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 This Act and the amendments made by this Act take 

17 effect on April 15, 2010. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 456 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 9, 2019. 

Whereas State securities regulators are the original pioneers 

of regulating the United States capital markets and have 

protected investors during times of boom and bust, from 

ticker tape to the block-chain; 

Whereas State securities regulators founded the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) as a 

voluntary association in 1919, 8 years after the first securities laws were enacted in Kansas in 1911; 

Whereas NASAA’s membership in 2019 includes securities 

administrators in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Canada, 

and Mexico; 

Whereas the fundamental mission of the State securities regulators is protecting investors who transact in securities 

and receive investment advice, and their jurisdiction extends to a wide variety of issuers and intermediaries who 

offer and sell securities to the public; 

Whereas State securities regulators are leaders in civil and 

administrative enforcement actions, as well as criminal 

prosecutions of securities violators; 

Whereas State securities regulators have led efforts resulting 

in landmark settlements to stop unfair practices in the 
2 

•HRES 456 EH 

securities industry, the return of billions of dollars to 

harmed investors, and thousands of bad actors sitting in 

jail as the result of their work in investigating and uncovering fraud; 

Whereas State securities regulators independently and within 

the framework of NASAA have also devised innovative 

ways for small companies to raise investment capital; 

Whereas State securities regulators independently and within 

the framework of NASAA conduct investor education 

programs throughout the United States, providing important information to main street Americans on investing 

for a secure future and avoiding scams; and 

Whereas State securities regulators are known for their accessibility and accountability to the investing public and 

have been willing to push the envelope when it comes to 

protecting investors: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) emphasizes the longstanding role of State securities regulators in maintaining investor protection and 

vibrant capital markets in the United States; 

(2) supports the efforts of State securities regulators to educate investors throughout the United States; 

(3) supports the efforts of State securities regulators to promote responsible and efficient capital formation for the benefit of small businesses and investors 

throughout the United States; 

(4) urges State securities regulators to continue 

working independently and within the voluntary frame-
3 

•HRES 456 EH 

work of NASAA to protect and educate investors and 

promote capital formation; and 

(5) urges the Securities and Exchange Commission 

to maintain and expand voluntary collaboration with 

State securities regulators in the interest of the investing 

public. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# Archived NIMH Science News

The National Institute of Mental Health archives materials that are over 4 years old and no longer being updated. This archive includes past NIMH science updates, press releases, and other news items. While the archived pages help demonstrate the scope of NIMH research and programs, the information may be out of date. Please visit NIMH’s News & Events page for the latest news and information.

See archived science news by year from the list below.

- 2020
- 2019
- 2018
- 2017
- 2016
- 2015
- 2014
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- 2009
- 2008
- 2007
WD Acosta? DD Ole

Zl ler slun ber. ule - 52, le/7-03

ou Based aba LexceePen tHE Talo.

Vacs Artotep Lee each Ghouls Serch
ale <Surcoerla bects. THis 19 ABSACUTEy
Klar TRUE. Au nléic ok Habeas Cor hu

Vapeuicariel fae Grould ole is _A Vd

fez, lox Tile aes My MEM eALD thet
OL LarLl rs APROX LIMATEL 10 Fe

lola Bur suc _is_ExceupeDd

aul. ler luk eek,_ 0b lle SRT OS
0&s_LoT~ Pol blip TO CB THis TPL Collet

4usé_slunecks Ch 2009 -392.-t ease

Céezck aur Syste As THiS is Hy bres
Wlbir ol rns 0ausE MLA BEL.

Rens _CopkEct THUS LISTRE bale

tout My Dela of Due ocess Arlo

Dedae 2b Me Sut Awe weot- BE kev. Ee la

Pirleule fou ale four. Fo less ioe
s74 GO 1 is _ MArree:

COURT

Aesterarticay.

SECEIY ft
IF canes ALS SoihgHE |

UL15-2915

Grrkre Heplee

Abel Acosta Clark F590 07E

30O/ 8. Ex Ly Dk.

Belle Ti 121092
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 645 

Expressing support for the designation of October 11, 2019, as the Day 

of the Girl Child in the United States, and celebrating the International 

Day of the Girl Child in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 18, 2019 

Mr. TRONE (for himself, Ms. WILSON of Florida, Ms. FUDGE, Mrs. LEE of 

Nevada, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. PAYNE, 

Ms. CLARKE of New York, and Ms. HOULAHAN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of October 11, 2019, 

as the Day of the Girl Child in the United States, 

and celebrating the International Day of the Girl Child 

in the United States. 

Whereas, on December 19, 2011, the United Nations General 

Assembly adopted Resolution 66/170, to declare October 

11 of each year as the International Day of the Girl 

Child to recognize girls’ rights and the unique challenges 

girls face around the world; 

Whereas the International Day of the Girl Child publicly recognizes the vulnerable positions of girls worldwide and 

endorses their protection and promotion as equal citizens 

in every country; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 645 IH 

Whereas in many countries, girls do not have the right of free 

speech or enjoy privileges afforded others in their respective societies, are exploited and attacked, and are subjected to media pressure concerning how they should 

look, act, and feel; 

Whereas girls should be recognized for their positive and 

transformative role in shaping society and for overcoming 

obstacles of gender equality; 

Whereas the observation of the International Day of the Girl 

Child supports more opportunity for girls and increases 

awareness of gender inequality faced by girls worldwide 

based on their gender; and 

Whereas the observance of the International Day of the Girl 

Child in the United States may help build awareness of 

the challenges faced by girls worldwide and promote the 

end of gender discrimination: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of the Day of the 

3 Girl Child in the United States; and 

4 (2) encourages— 

5 (A) educational entities, organizations, 

6 businesses, clubs, and government agencies with 

7 a shared interest in promoting girls’ rights to 

8 collaborate and develop educational tools for use 

9 in the public schools of the United States; and 

10 (B) the people of the United States to ob11 serve the International Day of the Girl Child 

12 and the Day of the Girl Child in the United 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 645 IH 

1 States with appropriate ceremonies and other 

2 activities. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41255

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MANUEL DE LA CRUZ-GUTIERREZ, also known as Victor Taveras, 

also known as Jose Manuel Taveras De La Cruz-Gutierrez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1247-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Manuel De La Cruz-Gutierrez (De La Cruz) appeals the 46-month 

sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien 

illegally present in the United States following deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) 

and (b). He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 16-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his prior 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-41255 Document: 00513116945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2015
No. 13-41255

2

Pennsylvania conviction of manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with the 

intent to manufacture or deliver cocaine.

De La Cruz first argues that the Pennsylvania statutory provision under 

which he was convicted does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” under 

§ 2L1.2 because it criminalizes the distribution of cocaine without 

remuneration. We recently rejected the same argument in United States v. 

Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015).

De La Cruz also argues that Pennsylvania delivery does not qualify as a 

§ 2L1.2 drug trafficking offense because a conviction under the state statute

could rest upon administering a narcotic, an act not included in the Guidelines 

offense. In United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2014), 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), we required “a realistic probability, not a 

theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that 

falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” De La Cruz argues only that 

the available state documents do not preclude the possibility that his 

conviction was for administering or possessing with the intent to administer. 

He presents no situation in a case or his own case in which Pennsylvania courts 

have construed the Pennsylvania statute in such a way. As in Teran-Salas, 

this theoretical possibility is insufficient to show error in the application of the

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 460.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-41255 Document: 00513116945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2015
July 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ERIC LOPEZ, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00389-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY DAVID MITCHELL,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-258-1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeffrey David 

Mitchell has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mitchell has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well 

as Mitchell’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10383 Document: 00514519658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
No. 17-10383

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10383 Document: 00514519658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
#### Herman C. BARNES, Plaintiff, v. E. J. PLATTE FISHERIES, a corporation, Defendant.

No. GC6347.

United States District Court N. D. Mississippi, Greenville Division.

Dec. 17, 1964.

Philip Mansour, Greenville, Miss., S. Eldridge Sampliner, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

W. C. Ready, Ready, Campbell & DeLong, Greenville, Miss., M. E. Ward, Dent, Ward, Martin & Terry, Vicksburg, Miss., for defendant.

CLAYTON, District Judge.

This civil action for personal injuries was brought by a seaman under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688. Defendant, a Mississippi corporation, which owned and operated the vessel upon which the plaintiff served and was injured, has moved to dismiss for improper venue. While there is disagreement as to whether defendant was doing business within this district, determination of that issue is not material in the view that this court takes of the law, for it is not disr puted that the defendant employer resides and has its principal office located in the Southern District of Mississippi.

The statute upon which plaintiff’s claim for relief is based, 46 U.S.C. § 688, in relevant part reads:

> “Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district *in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.’’*(Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff contends that the general venue statute governing corporations, 28 U.S. C. § 1391(c), serves to define corporate residence for all purposes, that it includes districts in which corporations do business, and that the special venue statute for Jones Act cases must be read to permit actions in the district where the “defendant employer resides” *by doing business.*

A similar contention was made with regard to the effect of the general venue statute on the special venue statute for patent infringement actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The Supreme Court rejected the argument and held that the special venue statute was the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in such cases. Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit applied the Fourco rationale to the statute here in question *391in a ease very similar to the one now before the court, finding “no basis for a different ruling on essentially the same problem of statutory construction in a Jones Act case.” Leith v. Oil Transport Co., 321 F.2d 591 (3rd Cir.1963).

Regarding these cases as having announced the correct rule, this court must find that defendant’s residence outside this district and the location of its principal office outside this district make venue here improper. Defendant’s motion to dismiss must be sustained and the action dismissed without prejudice.

Order will be entered in accordance with this opinion.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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 Quarterly Report of Orient Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 

| Date: February 1, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Zhenyong Liu                     |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |  

Zhenyong Liu

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)                                                        |

 

8

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00376

- CR

Camie S. Mangrum

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1348519)

February 11, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel