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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 27 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 27

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
     United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture relating to inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2015

Mr. McCain (for himself and Ms. Ayotte) introduced the following joint 
   resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
     United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture relating to inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture relating to ``Mandatory 
Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived From 
Such Fish'' (80 Fed. Reg. 75590; December 2, 2015), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                          |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| August      14, 2008                                         |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| August      14, 2008                                         |
#### ESSLINGER’S, INC. (a Pennsylvania Corporation) v. LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, Limited (a Capital Stock Company).

Civ. A. No. 30279.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 21, 1962.

Norman C. Henss, Cohen, Shapiro & Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Paul J. Donnelly, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

GRIM, Senior Judge.

Plaintiff opposes defendant’s motion to join third-party defendants.

This is an action against the defendant insurance company on a blanket crime insurance policy issued by it. Plaintiff rests its claim on allegations that it suffered losses at least in the full amount of the $75,000 policy limit because of fraudulent and dishonest acts of plaintiff’s employees in issuing credit memoranda to certain customers for larger numbers of empty beer bottles than the customers actually returned to plaintiff’s brewery.

Defendant seeks to join as third-party defendants five of plaintiff’s employees and eight of plaintiff’s customers, seeking indemnity from the third-party defendants on the theory that defendant will be subrogated to plaintiff’s rights against the employees and the customers in the amount which defendant may be compelled to pay to plaintiff.

F.R.Civ.P. rule 14, 28 U.S.C.A. provides :

> “* * * A defendant may move **** * for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him. * * * ”

*560Under this rule it is obvious that the defendant in the present case may bring into the case in a third-party action the employees and customers involved in the alleged plan to cheat plaintiff. Plaintiff’s argument against joining the third-party defendants in substance is that the trial of the additional case along with the original case will make the trial so complicated that it will be almost unmanageable. This contention, however, is not an argument against joining the additional defendants in the present action but rather it indicates that there may be a question whether under Rule 42(b) the original action and the third-party action should be separated for trial purposes. Whether or not this should be done is not now before the court and should not be passed upon until after discovery has been completed.

ORDER

. AND NOW, March 21, 1962, defendant’s motion to join Frank Feeney, Edward McCarthy, Leo Maisey, Nicholas Piar, John McLaughlin, Pasquale Cianfrani, Mario D’lmperio, Clarence West, Frank Gross, Alexander Terescho, John Thomas, and Edward Morgan as third-party defendants is granted, and it is ordered that a third-party summons and the third-party complaint be served upon them, together with a copy of this order.
#### Michael R. RAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matthew B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden of FCI Estill; Federal Bureau of Prisons; State of New Jersey, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-7121.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 10, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

*491Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Ray, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254 (2000) and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to the denial of § 2254 relief and affirm as to the denial of § 2241 relief for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Ray v. Hamidullah,*Nos. 4:06-cv-01178-RBH; 4:06-cv-01201-RBH, 2007 WL 465440 (D.S.C. Feb. 6 & July 17, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-11-00010-CV

_________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOHN QUINCY WARREN

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-03-03046 CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found John Quincy Warren suffers from a behavioral abnormality that 

makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. The trial court civilly 

committed Warren to a program of outpatient treatment and supervision to protect the 

community. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

After perfecting appeal, Warren’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief 

certifying that the appeal is frivolous. Appellate counsel’s brief presents counsel’s 

professional evaluation of the record and asks this Court to accept the Anders brief. See 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re 

Commitment of Rayson, No. 09–06–081–CV, 2007 WL 846555, *1 (Tex. App.—
2

Beaumont Mar. 22, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). On January 12, 2012, we granted leave to 

file a pro se brief. Appellant filed two responses which we have reviewed for arguable 

error.

We have reviewed the record and determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. 

The Anders brief filed by appellate counsel adequately presents the case, and additional 

briefing by new counsel will not aid in the satisfactory submission of the appeal. Tex. R.

App. P. 38.9. We find no arguable error requiring further action in this case. The trial 

court’s judgment ordering civil commitment is affirmed.1

AFFIRMED.

 

________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on September 28, 2012

Opinion Delivered October 11, 2012

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

 

1Warren may challenge our decision by filing a petition for review with the Texas 

Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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.
  /s/Timothy M. MaylebenTimothy M. MaylebenPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/Scott C. DurbinScott C. DurbinChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 09 -0 07 12 -C R IN RE Steven L

. AM IS Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 11, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On No ve mbe r 2 , 2 00 9, rela tor Ste ve n L . A mis fi le d a

pe tit ion fo r a wr it o f m a nd a mus , se e kin g to c omp e l the pr e sid ing jud g e of the 22 6th Judic ia l Distri c t Cour t, B e xar Cou nty , T e xas t o rule on va rious post-conviction motions. The motions re late to Ca use No. 2000-CR-6068, sty led The Sta te of T

e x as v . S te v e n Le e Am is , which wa s hear d in the 226th J udicial District Court, the Ho no ra ble Sid L . H a rl e pr e sid ing . H ow e ve r, the ju dgmen t in tha t c a us e is f ina l a nd no po stconviction proc eeding is pending in the trial court. Rela tor is theref ore not e ntitled to the rel i ef soug ht and the petition for a writ of mandamus is DENI ED. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)

. PER C URI AM PUB L I SH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

# SUMMARY:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons who will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive Service 2017 Performance Review Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information about the NIH Performance Review Board, contact the Office of Human Resources, Division of Senior and Scientific Executive Management, National Institutes of Health, Building 2, Room 5E18, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, telephone 301-402-7999 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4), which requires that members of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to ensure                           ( print page 42351)                        consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance appraisals and requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a member be published in the                     **Federal Register.**

The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of NIH Senior Executive Service (SES) members:

Alfred Johnson, Chair

Joellen Austin

Michael Gottesman

Richard Ikeda

Michael Lauer

Ellen Rolfes

LaVerne Stringfield

Lawrence Tabak

Timothy Wheeles

Dated: August 30, 2017.

Francis S. Collins,

Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2017-18899 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 15, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive
Auto Receivables Trust 2013-3 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

Executive Vice President Capital Markets and TreasurerDate:

March 30, 2017By:

/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 30, 2017
## GENERAL THE A-rrom

OF TEXAS

AU-TIN. TEXAS 78711 November 9, 

### 1965

Honorable Charles A. Allen opinion NO. 

### c-538 Criminal District Attorney Harrison County Re: P. o. BOX 

### 776 Under the stated facts, whether thehospital bill Marshall, Texas and the doctor bill of the person charged with an aS6aUlt tomurder is the responsibility of Dear Mr. Allen: Harrison County.
Your letter requesting the opinion of this department on the above~stated question read6 in part as follows: ,:"Whlle

Investigating a failure to stop and-glve:~lnformation after an accident, a deputy sheriff called ahighway patrolman and they subsequently located the vehicle believed to be the vehicle involved in the accident. The deputy sheriff and the highway patrolman started towalk to a .housewhere the vehicle wa6 parked and ~. from a concealed place within the house, a man opened fire, shooting the deputy sheriff In the right chest, and while attempting to reload-the rifle, one of the officers shot the assailant, Seriously injuring him. ."Theofficer radioed for an ambulance and .theassailant and the deputy sheriff were carried to the hospital. The assailant was filed on forA66aUlt with Intent to Murder, and ahold wa6 placed onhim at the hospital. Hewas Subsequently indicted forAS6aUlt with Intent toMurder by the Grand Jury." Article 

### 1037,Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, provides:

"Each county shall be liable for all expense incurred on account of the safe keeping of prisoners confined in jail or kept under guard, except prisoners brought from another county for safe keeping, or -257-I-Hon. Charles A. Allen, page 2 (c-538)

onhabeas corpu6 orchange of venue; in which case6, the county fromwhich the prisoner is brought shall be liable for the expense ofhis safe keeping." This office held InAttorney General'6 Opinion O-IL708 (1942)that a county is liable for the necessary and reasonable medical expenses of aprisoner during illness when theprisoner is confined in .jailorunder guard. The reasonableness, as well as the just and proper amount of the charge6 for suchmedical treatment is amatter tobe determined by the Commissioner6 Court. Since the assailant, while Incustody of the sheriff, was inneed ofmedical care, and 6UCh carewa6 furnished him, the county became liable forhi6 safe keeping and should pay his necessary medical expenses. SUMMARY
A County is responsible for the necessary hospital care and treatment by a doctor of aprisoner while in the custady of the sheriff.
Yours very truly, wipGmERCARR Attorney General of Texas

**4if@dmjMU BY** **’** Roward M. Fender AsSiStant Attorney General HMF:sss
APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Reeves Gordon Cass Robert E. Owen John Banks APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: T. B.Wright

-2578-
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHEL DOMINGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-281

[February 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Krista Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CF003242AXX.

Louis G. Carres and Ronald S. Chapman, West Palm Beach, for 

appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard 

Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 23, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00652

- CR

Emilio Rene MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appe llee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- CRD

- 90

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The court reporter’s motion for extension of time to file the record is granted. We order

the record due November 20, 2014

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,608
<PP&E>                                         601,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 599,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,720
<BONDS>                                        197,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                     331,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   599,338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,970
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Bobby Jackson, * From the 350th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 15006-D.

Vs. No. 11-22-00030-CR * March 10, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

l0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137873

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137873 COA: 278172 Calhoun CC: 2 006-002703-FC MICHAEL DESHAWN THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.