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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 457 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 198
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 457

                          [Report No. 106-559]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, 
          United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2000

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, 
          United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, 
United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 3660, it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table S. 1692 and to consider the Senate bill in the 
House. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions 
of H.R. 3660 as passed by the House. All points of order against that 
motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as 
amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that the House 
insist on its amendment to S. 1692 and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 198

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 457

                          [Report No. 106-559]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, 
          United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 4, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2014342EN.01000301.xml

| 1.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/3

---

Indicative calendar of reserve maintenance periods in 2015

2014/C 342/04

In accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 (ECB/2003/9) of the European Central Bank (1), the indicative calendar of maintenance periods in 2015 is hereby published.

1

Taking into account the 2015 schedule for the meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, the 12th maintenance period in 2014 will be extended by 14 days and end on 27 January 2015. The indicative calendar of maintenance periods in 2015 is as follows:

Indicative calendar of maintenance periods in 2015

Indicative calendar of maintenance periods in 2015

| MP | Relevant Governing Council meeting | Start of maintenance period | End of maintenance period | Reserve base data for credit institutions reporting monthly | Reserve base data for credit institutions reporting quarterly | Length of the maintenance period (days) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 22 January 2015 | 28 January 2015 | 10 March 2015 | November 2014 | September 2014 | 42 |
| 2 | 5 March 2015 | 11 March 2015 | 21 April 2015 | January 2015 | December 2014 | 42 |
| 3 | 15 April 2015 | 22 April 2015 | 9 June 2015 | February 2015 | December 2014 | 49 |
| 4 | 3 June 2015 | 10 June 2015 | 21 July 2015 | April 2015 | March 2015 | 42 |
| 5 | 16 July 2015 | 22 July 2015 | 8 September 2015 | May 2015 | March 2015 | 49 |
| 6 | 3 September 2015 | 9 September 2015 | 27 October 2015 | July 2015 | June 2015 | 49 |
| 7 | 22 October 2015 | 28 October 2015 | 8 December 2015 | August 2015 | June 2015 | 42 |
| 8 | 3 December 2015 | 9 December 2015 | 26 January 2016 | October 2015 | September 2015 | 49 |

MP

Relevant Governing Council meeting

Start of maintenance period

End of maintenance period

Reserve base data for credit institutions reporting monthly

Reserve base data for credit institutions reporting quarterly

Length of the maintenance period (days)

1

22 January 2015

28 January 2015

10 March 2015

November 2014

September 2014

42

2

5 March 2015

11 March 2015

21 April 2015

January 2015

December 2014

42

3

15 April 2015

22 April 2015

9 June 2015

February 2015

December 2014

49

4

3 June 2015

10 June 2015

21 July 2015

April 2015

March 2015

42

5

16 July 2015

22 July 2015

8 September 2015

May 2015

March 2015

49

6

3 September 2015

9 September 2015

27 October 2015

July 2015

June 2015

49

7

22 October 2015

28 October 2015

8 December 2015

August 2015

June 2015

42

8

3 December 2015

9 December 2015

26 January 2016

October 2015

September 2015

49

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1745/2003 of the European Central Bank of 12 September 2003 on the application of minimum reserves (ECB/2003/9) (OJ L 250, 2.10.2003, p. 10).

1

---
# C_2006165EN.01002801.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/28

---

Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)

(Case T-131/06)

(2006/C 165/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado S.A. (Paterna, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2006 in Case R 329/2005-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2006 in Case R 329/2005-1;

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles.

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SONIA SONIA RYKIEL’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 (Community trade mark application No 1035625)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cuadrado, S.A.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national trade marks ‘SONIA’ for goods in classes 24 and 25.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition with respect to the goods covered in class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the mark applied for, for all goods covered by it in class 25.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 40/94 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2013240EN.01000301.xml

| 21.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/3

---

Notification of the Czech Republic Government pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Electricity Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity regarding the designation of ČEPS, a. s. as transmission system operator in the Czech Republic — Electricity TSO

2013/C 240/03

Following the Czech Republic regulatory authority's final decision of 7 December 2012 regarding the certification of ČEPS, a. s. as ownership unbundled transmission system operator (Article 9 of the Electricity Directive), the Czech Republic has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of this company as a transmission system operator operating in the Czech Republic in accordance with Article 10 of the Electricity Directive.

Any additional information can be obtained from:

| Ministry of Industry and Trade |
| --- |
| Na Františku 32 |
| 110 15 Praha 1 |
| ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA |
| http://www.mpo.cz |

Ministry of Industry and Trade

Na Františku 32

110 15 Praha 1

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

http://www.mpo.cz

---
§ 11.1208 Service of the protection order. When an order of protection is granted under this subpart: ( a ) The petitioner must file it with the clerk of the court;
( b ) The clerk of the court must send a copy to a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the area in which the court is located;
( c ) The order must be personally served upon the respondent, unless the respondent or his or her attorney was present at the time the order was issued; and
( d ) If the court finds the petitioner unable to pay court costs, the order will be served without cost to the petitioner.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2014020EN.01000301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/3 |

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 20/03)

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Date of adoption of the decision | 26.11.2013 | |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.37202 (13/N) | |
| Member State | United Kingdom | |
| Region | Wales | Mixed |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Finance Wales JEREMIE Fund | |
| Legal basis | | | | | --- | --- | | | Section 60 Government of Wales Act 2006 | | | | | --- | --- | | | Section 1 Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 | | |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Risk capital | |
| Form of aid | Provision of risk capital | |
| Budget | Overall budget: GBP 150 million | |
| Intensity | — | |
| Duration (period) | Until 31.12.2015 | |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid | |
| Name and address of the granting authority | | | | --- | | Finance Wales | | Oakleigh House | | Park Place | | Cardiff | | CF10 3DQ | | UNITED KINGDOM | | |
| Other information | — | |

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
# C_2013355EN.01000101.xml

| 5.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/1

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

2013/C 355/01

Binding Tariff Information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC1874 — report of the 51st Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANISATION

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANISATION

(51st SESSION OF THE HSC IN MARCH 2013)

DOC. NC1874

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| 15.09 | N/24 |
| --- | --- |
| 17.04 | N/2 |
| 20.08 | N/2 |
| 28.17 | N/22 |
| Chapter 29 | N/21 |
| Chapter 29 — List I | N/23 |
| 29.22 | N/20 |
| 71.13 | N/26 |

15.09

N/24

17.04

N/2

20.08

N/2

28.17

N/22

Chapter 29

N/21

Chapter 29 — List I

N/23

29.22

N/20

71.13

N/26

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 3808.91/4 | N/3 |
| --- | --- |
| 3924.90/2-3-4 | N/4 |
| 6907.90/1 | N/5 |
| 7019.39/1 | N/6 |
| 7321.89/1 | N/7 |
| 7326.90/8 | N/8 |
| 8205.51/1-2 | N/9 |
| 8426.41/2 | N/10 |
| 8471.30/4 | N/11 |
| 8528.51/2 | N/12 |
| 8528.51/3-4 | N/13 |
| 8541.29/1 | N/14 |
| 8703.33/2 | N/15 |
| 8705.90/1 | N/16 |
| 8708.99/4-5 | N/17 |
| 9006.30/1 | N/18 |
| 9006.91/1 | N/19 |

3808.91/4

N/3

3924.90/2-3-4

N/4

6907.90/1

N/5

7019.39/1

N/6

7321.89/1

N/7

7326.90/8

N/8

8205.51/1-2

N/9

8426.41/2

N/10

8471.30/4

N/11

8528.51/2

N/12

8528.51/3-4

N/13

8541.29/1

N/14

8703.33/2

N/15

8705.90/1

N/16

8708.99/4-5

N/17

9006.30/1

N/18

9006.91/1

N/19

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the Internet site of this Directorate-General:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---
IV

House Calendar No. 198

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 457

[Report No. 106–559]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, United

States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2000

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend

title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

3 3660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban par4 tial-birth abortions. The bill shall be considered as read

5 for amendment. The previous question shall be considered

6 as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening

7 motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and

8 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
2

HRES 457 RH

1 of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion

2 to recommit.

3 SEC. 2. After passage of H.R. 3660, it shall be in

4 order to take from the Speaker’s table S. 1692 and to

5 consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order

6 to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Sen7 ate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.

8 3660 as passed by the House. All points of order against

9 that motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the

10 Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order

11 to move that the House insist on its amendment to S.

12 1692 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

House Calendar No. 198

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 457

[Report No. 106–559]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3660)

to amend title 18, United States Code, to banpartial-birth abortions.

APRIL 4, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6710

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT W. SMITH, Supt.; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS THEODIS 

BECK,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-WWD)

Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his “Motion for an 

Order to Enlarge the Time to File Amendments/And Request for an 

Expedited Ruling on the Matter Given the Clear and Undisputed 

Constitutional Violation.” The district court’s order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### § 214.18 Assignments.

Approved leases or any interest therein may be transferred or assigned with the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior and not otherwise. Transfers or assignments, when so approved, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the original leases and regulations under which such leases were approved as well as to such additional requirements as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The transferee or assignee shall furnish with his transfer or assignment a satisfactory bond as prescribed in § 214.4 in connection with leases. Any attempt to transfer or assign an approved lease or any interest therein without the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior shall be absolutely void and shall subject the original lease to cancellation in the discretion of the secretary.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

I, Daniel J. Gardetto, certify that:



|(a) | A review of the Servicers activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from October 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2011 has been made under my supervision.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects
throughout the aforementioned period.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated March 23, 2012



/s/   Daniel J. GardettoDaniel J. GardettoAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,
as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto LeaseTrust 2011-B
§ 2.505 When will the reviewing official issue a decision on an appeal? ( a ) The reviewing official (other than the IBIA) will issue a written decision, including the basis for the decision, within 90 days after the latest of: ( 1 ) The filing of the statement of reasons;
( 2 ) The filing of any responses, replies, or supplemental briefs under §§ 2.209 through 2.212; or
( 3 ) The filing of any comments on additional material under § 2.504(b).
( b ) A reviewing official (other than the IBIA) may, for good cause and with notice to the decision-maker and participants, extend the deadline for the official's decision one time by no more than 90 days.
H. Res. 410

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 1, 2000.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Goode of

Virginia.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §8477. Grants for faculty research for scientific, literary, and educational purposes: acceptance; authorized grantees

(a) Acceptance of Research Grants.—The Secretary of the Navy may authorize the Superintendent of the Academy to accept qualifying research grants under this section. Any such grant may only be accepted if the work under the grant is to be carried out by a professor or instructor of the Academy for a scientific, literary, or educational purpose.

(b) Qualifying Grants.—A qualifying research grant under this section is a grant that is awarded on a competitive basis by an entity referred to in subsection (c) for a research project with a scientific, literary, or educational purpose.

(c) Entities From Which Grants May be Accepted.—A grant may be accepted under this section only from a corporation, fund, foundation, educational institution, or similar entity that is organized and operated primarily for scientific, literary, or educational purposes.

(d) Administration of Grant Funds.—The Secretary shall establish an account for administering funds received as research grants under this section. The Superintendent shall use the funds in the account in accordance with applicable regulations and the terms and conditions of the grants received.

(e) Related Expenses.—Subject to such limitations as may be provided in appropriations Acts, appropriations available for the Academy may be used to pay expenses incurred by the Academy in applying for, and otherwise pursuing, award of a qualifying research grant.

(f) Regulations.—The Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.

(Added Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title X, §1063(b)(1), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2130, §6977; renumbered §8477, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6977 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.