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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 298 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 298

  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2017

  Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. 
 Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, Ms. 
 Cantwell, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. 
   McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Udall, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
   Bennet, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Franken, Mr. Coons, Mr. Portman, Ms. 
Baldwin, Mr. Donnelly, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Markey, 
Mr. Peters, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Hassan, and Mr. Daines) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

    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 ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH COMMISSION.

    Section 302(g) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
U.S.C. 30102(g)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations, statements, 
and reports required to be filed under this Act shall be filed with the 
Commission.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2820 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the Trump tax 

increase on victims of sexual harassment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2018 

Mr. MENENDEZ 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 repeal 

the Trump tax increase on victims of sexual harassment. 

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 ‘‘Repeal the Trump Tax 

5 Hike on Victims of Sexual Harassment Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES PAID IN CON7 NECTION WITH CERTAIN SETTLEMENTS FOR 

8 SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162(q)(2) of the Internal 

10 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘in the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2820 IS

1 case of the taxpayer for whom a deduction is disallowed 

2 by reason of paragraph (1),’’ before ‘‘attorney’s fees’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall take effect as if included in section 

5 13307 of Public Law 115–97. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:  (1)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-3
  No. 333-111895),(2)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-8
  No. 333-135079) pertaining to the 2006 Non-Employee Directors Stock
  Grant and Stock Option Plan,(3)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-8
  No. 333-129349) pertaining to the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
  Plan,(4)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-8
  No. 333-121552) pertaining to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan,(5)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-8
  No. 333-81274) pertaining to the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and(6)
  
  Registration Statement (Form S-8
  No. 333-10069) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan and the 1996
  Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan;  of our reports dated March 27, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Guess?, Inc., and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Guess?, Inc.,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31,
2009.   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPLos Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 27, 2009
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 2, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00231

- CV

Mohammad Mahmood , Appellant

v.

John Ward, Susan Ward, and Amanda Slahetka , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 480TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BE FORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an attempted appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on March 22, 2024

. Having

reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because app ellant is indig ent and unable to

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Foreword oreword

Shortly after her confirmation, then-Chairman Ricki R. Helfer directed the FDICs

staff to undertake this study. She strongly believed that a careful examination and analysis

of the banking crises of the 1980s and early 1990s would provide information that would

allow the FDIC to better fulfill its mission.

The banking problems of the period were of a magnitude not seen since the Great

Depression and the advent of federal deposit insurance and therefore provide a unique window through which we can study the causes of, and the regulatory and supervisory response

to, sharply increased numbers of bank failures in a modern economic and banking environment. There have, of course, been significant changes since the early 1990s in the performance and structure of the banking industry. Moreover, in the wake of the banking crises

and subsequent legislative reforms, changes in the supervisory process have attempted to

ensure improved monitoring of bank risk and more timely intervention in, and closure of,

troubled banks. But not all the issues raised by the problems of the 19801994 period have

been laid to rest. Moreover, the current improved condition of the industry and the supervisory changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s do not mean that banking problems cannot

return sometime in the future. Although it is clear that the problems of the past are unlikely

to be precisely repeated in the future, the study of these recent crises is nevertheless instructive. At the very least, the history of the turbulent time in banking should teach us that

we cannot afford to be complacent, and the FDIC hopes this study that glances backward

will be helpful as we look forward.

This study was prepared by the FDICs Division of Research and Statistics. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of the information it contains and to provide an impartial assessment of what occurred. As is the case with any history, however, the

interpretations made by those who have written it are important to its structure and conclusions, and these interpretations are not necessarily those of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

Andrew C. Hove, Jr.

Chairman

December 1997
* 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

April 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51167

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVAN MARTINEZ-DELCID,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-844-ALL 

--------------------

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ivan MartinezDelcid raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended                 Six Months
                                                 ------------------                    Ended
                                          June 30, 1998         June 30, 1997      June 30, 1998
                                          -------------         -------------      -------------
<S>                                       <C>                   <C>                <C>
Net income                                    $4,201                $2,539            $7,728

Unpaid preferred stock dividend                 (164)                  (61)             (325)
                                              ------                ------            ------
Income available to common shareholders        4,037                 2,478             7,403

Weighted shares outstanding                    5,792                 5,229             5,792
                                              ------                ------            ------
Basic earnings per share                      $0.697                $0.474            $1.278
                                              ======                ======            ======
Dilutive effect of stock options                 186                   115               182

Weighted shares for wholly diluted             5,978                 5,344             5,974
                                              ------                ------            ------
Diluted earnings per share                    $0.675                $0.464            $1.239   
                                              ======                ======            ======
                                                                         
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY BRASWELL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 60 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2022, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
El USDA es un proveedor de igualdad de oportunidades, empleo y préstamos. Agosto 2023 

Controle la Listeria monocytogenes

(Lm) en su Deli 

1

3

2

8

5 6 7

Escanee el código QR que enlaza 

con la Guía para Minoristas. 

No prepare, mantenga ni almacene 

productos charcutería de carne o aves 

cerca o directamente junto a productos 

crudos. 

¿Qué es la Lm?

La Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) es una bacteria que contamina los alimentos y causa una infección grave llamada 

listeriosis. Aproximadamente 1600 personas contraen listeriosis cada año y 260 mueren. La infección afecta 

¿Por qué es preocupante la contaminación con Lm en los establecimientos minoristas?

La Lm puede albergarse en los entornos de producción y en las zonas de almacenamiento en frío. La 

transferencia de Lm desde el entorno, equipos, empleados y alimentos crudos representa un riesgo 

particularmente importante en las charcuterías minoristas. Los productos de alimentos, el entorno, los equipos y 

las prácticas de los empleados son todas potenciales fuentes de contaminación con Lm en los establecimientos. 

La contaminación con Lm implica que los productos de charcutería de carne y aves están adulterados y no son 

salubres para su consumo. 

¿Qué pasos pueden tomar los minoristas para controlar la Lm en sus establecimientos? 

Eliminar los productos visiblemente 

adulterados (ej. pelo o insectos en 

el producto, etc.) que se encuentren 

en la charcutería minorista. 

Evitar las condiciones del entorno en el área de charcutería o de 

almacenamiento que puedan causar que los productos se adulteren (ej. 

goteo por condensación sobre un producto expuesto, polvo de 

construcción o equipos averiados). 

Asegurarse de que no se presenten condiciones 

insalubres (ej. moscas, excrementos de roedores, moho 

o superficies sucias) donde se preparan, empacan y 

mantienen los productos de charcutería de carne y aves. 

Cubra, envuelva o proteja de alguna manera 

todos los productos de charcutería de carne y 

aves que se hayan abierto cuando no se estén 

usando para evitar la contaminación cruzada. 

Limpie y desinfecte los 

equipos usados para procesar 

los productos de charcutería 

al menos cada 4 horas. 

Refrigere los productos de 

carne y aves de charcutería 

prontamente después de 

su uso (ej. rebanado). 

Asegure que los empleados se laven las 

manos correctamente y usen guantes 

desechables antes de manipular los 

productos de charcutería. 

Proteja a sus clientes de una potencial contaminación con Lm en sus productos de charcutería

4
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2015

d1019

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2015

148244

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148244

COA: 316807

Marquette CC: 12-050513-FH

USAMAH CARSWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v 

Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Marquette Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially 

different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, 

the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial 

court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, 

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence 

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2818 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2818

  To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea Importation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 1993

 Mr. Synar (for himself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To increase the fee for the enforcement of the Tea Importation Act.

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

SECTION 1. FEE INCREASE.

    (a) Amendments to Act.--The Tea Importation Act is amended by--
            (1) striking out sections 11 and 12, and
            (2) inserting the 4th undesignated paragraph under the 
        center heading ``food and drug administration'' of title II of 
        the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1942 (21 U.S.C. 
        46a) as a new section 11 of such Act.
    (b) Amendment to Section.--The section 11 added to the Tea 
Importation Act by subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 11. No tea or merchandise described as tea shall be examined 
for importation into the United States or released by the Collector of 
Customs under the Tea Importation Act unless the importer or consignee 
of such tea or merchandise has paid, before such examination, a fee of 
10 cents for each hundred weight or fraction thereof of such tea or 
merchandise. Such fee shall be deposited into the Treasury of the 
United States as miscellaneous receipts.''.

                                 <all>
```
| 19821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199315 232321123333320
                      Source: FDIC, Annual Reports 1982 - 1993

Back to Chart
198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993175 377579705526315322234154132250
                      Source: FDIC, Annual Reports 1982 - 1993

Back to Chart

Commercial        Loans Mortgage        LoansOther        LoansREOJudgmentsSecuritiesOther Assets35.3%    29.6%3.2%13.9%4.4%0.7%12.9%
                      Source: Reports from FDIC Division of Finance

Back to Chart
 19871988198919901991Other2,177    2,0953,1434,6374,062Liquidation4,4003,3714,1416,3116,097    Supervision    2,5212,5942,9033,4003,813    RTC1,5164,8998,614Total9,0988,06011,70319,24722,586

                      Source: FDIC, 1990 Annual Report

Back          to Chart

1-4        Family Mtges.Other        Mtges.Other        LoansREOOther AssetsCash/Securities19.9%    33.7%6.9%13.1%12.4%14.0%
                      Source: RTC August 1989/September 1995 Statistical Abstract

Back to Chart |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 31 
          - [REG-110374-00] 
          - RIN 1545-AY21 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTON:

Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (66 FR 3956), relating to interest-free adjustments with respect to underpayments of employment taxes.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne O'Connell Devereaux (202) 622-3850 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

## Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-110374-00), that is the subject of this correction is under section 6205 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

## Need for Correction 

As published the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-110374-00), contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. 

## Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking which was the subject of FR Doc. 01-273, is corrected as follows: 

On page 3958, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “Proposed Effective Date”, the first paragraph, line 7, the language “January 12, 2001. No inference is” is corrected to read “January 17, 2001. No inference is”. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning). 

[FR Doc. 01-5283 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PAUL F. HANNAN and AMY HANNAN,

Appellants,

v.

ONEWEST BANK, FSB,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-506

[July 5, 2018]

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

Beach County; Peter D. Blanc, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012CA012784 AW.

Michael Vater, Kyle M. Costello and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin 

Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

David Rosenberg, Cynthia L. Comras and Jarrett Cooper of Robertson, 

Anschutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Kelly v. Bankunited, FSB, 159 So. 3d 403, 405 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2015).

WARNER, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.