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

Union Calendar No. 452

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1030

[Report No. 106–898]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Committe to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To provide that the conveyance by the Bureau of Land

Management of the surface estate to certain land in

the State of Wyoming in exchange for certain private

land will not result in the removal of the land from

operation of the mining laws.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. 60 BAR LAND EXCHANGE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 2201.1–2(d) and

5 2091.3–2(c) of title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, shall

6 not apply in the case of the conveyance by the Secretary
2

•S 1030 RH

1 of the Interior of the land described in subsection (b) in

2 exchange for approximately 9,480 acres of land in Camp3 bell County, Wyoming, pursuant to the terms of the Cow

4 Creek/60 Bar land exchange, WYW–143315.

5 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land described in this

6 subsection comprises the following land in Campbell and

7 Johnson Counties, Wyoming:

8 (1) Approximately 2,960 acres of land in the

9 tract known as the ‘‘Bill Barlow Ranch’’;

10 (2) Approximately 2,315 acres of land in the

11 tract know as the ‘‘T-Chair Ranch’’;

12 (3) Approximately 3,948 acres of land in the

13 tract known as the ‘‘Bob Christensen Ranch’’;

14 (4) Approximately 11,609 acres of land in the

15 tract known as the ‘‘John Christensen Ranch’’.

16 (c) SEGREGATION FROM ENTRY.—Land acquired by

17 the United States in the exchange under subsection (a)

18 shall be segregated from entry under the mining laws until

19 appropriate land use planning is completed for the land.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.

Union Calendar No. 542

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1030

[Report No. 106–898]

AN ACT

To provide that the conveyance by the Bureau of

Land Management of the surface estate to certain land in the State of Wyoming in exchangefor certain private land will not result in the removal of the land from operation of the mininglaws.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
### §2257a. Uniform financial reporting instructions

#### (a) In general

Each System institution shall comply with uniform financial reporting instructions required by the Farm Credit Administration, to standardize and facilitate the reporting of System data.

#### (b) Computerized system

If the financial reports are maintained by a computer system, each System institution may develop an internal computer system or it may contract out to a vendor under open competitive bidding any or all aspects of the computerized system.

#### (c) Submission of proposal

Within 6 months of January 6, 1988, each System institution shall submit to the Farm Credit Administration a report on the plan of that institution to bring the operations of the institution into compliance with the uniform financial reporting instructions required by the Farm Credit Administration.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.22A, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title IV, §429, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1658.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARCUS DIETER FELDER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 23-596

 23-597

D.C. Nos. 3:14-cr-00536-MMC-1

 3:19-cr-00256-MMC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Marcus Dieter Felder challenges a special 

condition of supervised release that was imposed following his convictions for 

aggravated identity theft, fraudulent use of unauthorized access devices, effecting

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 5 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-596 & 23-597

transactions with access devices issued to other persons, contempt of court, and 

failure to appear for sentencing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 401, 1028A, 1029, 

and 3146. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Felder contends that the district court erroneously imposed a special 

condition of supervised release that requires him to abstain from alcohol because

he has no history of alcohol abuse, his offenses were not alcohol-related, and the 

district court did not find that alcohol use is related to drug abuse. The parties 

dispute whether Felder waived this claim by failing to raise it in his first appeal. 

We need not resolve this dispute because, even if the claim is merely forfeited, the

district court did not plainly err in imposing the condition. See United States v. 

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-35 (1993). The presentence report shows, and Felder 

admitted, that his offense conduct and criminal history were linked to his 

methamphetamine addiction. Contrary to Felder’s argument, the alcohol 

abstention condition is reasonably related to the goals of rehabilitation and 

protection of the public, even in the absence of any indication of alcohol addiction,

because of the tie between drug and alcohol abuse. See United States v. Vega, 545 

F.3d 743, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008). At the very least, any error by the district court 

in imposing the alcohol abstention condition was not “obvious” under existing law. 

See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2006224EN.01001801.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/18

---

Order of the Court of 13 July 2006 — Front National and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-338/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Regulation and funding of political parties at European level - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Act open to challenge - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 224/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Front National, Marie-France Stirbois, Bruno Gollnisch, Carl Lang, Jean-Claude Martinez, Philip Claeys, Koen Dillen and Mario Borghezio (represented by: W. de Saint Just, avocat)

Appellants:

Respondents: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Díez Parra and M. Sims-Robertson, Agents)

Respondents:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-17/04 Front National and Others v European Parliament and Council, by which it dismissed as inadmissible an action for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1).

Front National and Others

European Parliament and Council

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the appellants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the appellants to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005

1

---
| **Condensed Consolidating Financial Information - Narrative (Details)**          | Mar. 31, 2018 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| **Condensed Financial Information of Parent Company Only Disclosure [Abstract]** |          |
| Senior secured leverage ratio maximum                                            | 2             |
| Consolidated coverage ratio minimum                                              | 2             |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Minimum consolidated coverage ratio to permit the declaration and payment of dividends under senior note indenture.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**ehc_Consolidatedcoverageratiominimum**Namespace Prefix:**ehc_**Data Type:**xbrli:pureItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Max senior secured leverage ratio to permit restricted payments under credit agreement.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**ehc_DebtInstrumentCovenantLeverageRatioMaximum**Namespace Prefix:**ehc_**Data Type:**xbrli:pureItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CondensedFinancialInformationOfParentCompanyOnlyDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 8 Agreed to House (ATH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 8

           Electing a Member to serve on standing committees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Frost submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Electing a Member to serve on standing committees.

    Resolved, That the following named Member is, and is hereby, 
elected to serve on standing committees as follows:
    Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions: Mr. Sanders.
    Committee on Governmental Reform: Mr. Sanders.
                                 <all>
```
### §1465. State law preemption standards for Federal savings associations clarified

#### (a) In general

Any determination by a court or by the Director or any successor officer or agency regarding the relation of State law to a provision of this chapter or any regulation or order prescribed under this chapter shall be made in accordance with the laws and legal standards applicable to national banks regarding the preemption of State law.

#### (b) Principles of conflict preemption applicable

Notwithstanding the authorities granted under sections 1463 and 1464 of this title, this chapter does not occupy the field in any area of State law.

#### (c) Visitorial powers

The provisions of sections 1 25b(i) of this title shall apply to Federal savings associations, and any subsidiary thereof, to the same extent and in the same manner as if such savings associations, or subsidiaries thereof, were national banks or subsidiaries of national banks, respectively.

#### (d) Enforcement actions

The ability of the Comptroller of the Currency to bring an enforcement action under this chapter or section 45 of title 15 does not preclude any private party from enforcing rights granted under Federal or State law in the courts.

(June 13, 1933, ch. 64, §6, as added and amended Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §§1046(a), 1047(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2017, 2018.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1465, acts June 13, 1933, ch. 64, §6, 48 Stat. 134; Apr. 27, 1934, ch. 168, §11, 48 Stat. 647; May 28, 1935, ch. 150, §19, 49 Stat. 297; Pub. L. 101–73, title III, §301, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 313, which related to liquid asset requirements, was repealed by Pub. L. 106–569, title XII, §1201(a), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 3032.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 111–203, §1047(b), added subsecs. (c) and (d).

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

#### Effective Date

Enactment and amendment of section by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1048 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5551 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section".
§ 515.4 Responsibility for responding to requests. ( a ) *In general.* In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Commission ordinarily will include only records in its possession as of the date it begins its search for records. If any other date is used, the Privacy Act Officer shall inform the requester of that date.
( b ) *Authority to grant or deny requests.* The Privacy Act Officer shall make initial determinations either to grant or deny in whole or in part access to records.
( c ) *Consultations and referrals.* When the Commission receives a request for a record in its possession, the Privacy Act Officer shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that it is best able to process the record in response to the request, then it shall do so. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that it is not best able to process the record, then it shall either: ( 1 ) Respond to the request regarding that record, after consulting with the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it and with any other agency that has a substantial interest in it; or
( 2 ) Refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it, or to another agency that originated the record. Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.
( d ) *Notice of referral.* Whenever the Privacy Act Officer refers all or any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it ordinarily shall notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name of each agency to which the request has been referred and of the part of the request that has been referred.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141132 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141132 

 COA: 296965 

Kent CC: 08-013166-FC 

TERRANCE DEVON SEYMOUR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2007096EN.01001902.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents

(Case C-202/05) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Patent law - Medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Concept of ‘product’ - Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients’)

(2007/C 96/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)

Parties

Applicant: Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Applicant:

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘product ’— Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product ’— Medicinal product composed of two components, one having a recognised therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other enabling the product to be presented in a form that ensures its efficacy

Operative part of the order

Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, in the version resulting from the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as meaning that in a case where a basic patent protects a second medical use of an active ingredient, that use does not form an integral part of the definition of the product.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



THE SPENDSMART PAYMENTS COMPANY



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of The SpendSmart Payments Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Horin, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 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.



Date: April 11, 2014





| | /s/ David Horin                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | David Horin                                                   
| | Chief Financial Officer                                       
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Amendment to Foreign Exchange and Options Master Agreement



			
	

	 	 1585 BROADWAY
 NEW YORK, NY 10036-8293


	 

 Amendment dated as of March 26, 2008 
 to the Foreign Exchange and Options Master Agreement (FEOMA) 
 dated as of
November 28, 2007 between 
 Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated (“Party A”) 
 and 
 The entities listed in Exhibit I to the
Schedule of the Agreement 
 (as amended or supplemented from time to time), severally and not jointly (“Party B”) 
 This Amendment dated as of March 26, 2008, supplements, forms part of, and is subject in all respects to, that Foreign Exchange and Options Master
Agreement (FEOMA) dated as of November 28, 2007 (the “Agreement”) by and between Party A and Party B. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings specified in the Agreement. 
 Each of Party A and Party B agrees that Exhibit I to the Schedule of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety by Exhibit I attached
hereto. Except as amended herein, this Amendment shall not affect any other terms of the Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 
 This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment by their duly authorized officers as of the date hereof. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	 DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
 as General
Partner and/or Trading Manager
 for the entities listed in Exhibit I

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Walter Davis

	Name:	 	Walter Davis
	Title:	 	President








			
	

	 	 1585 BROADWAY
 NEW YORK, NY 10036-8293


	 

 Exhibit I 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Altis I, LLC, managed by Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Aspect I, LLC, managed by Aspect Capital Limited 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures BHM I,
LLC, managed by Blenheim Capital Management, L.L.C. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Chesapeake I, LLC, managed by Chesapeake
Capital Corporation 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Cornerstone I, LLC, managed by Cornerstone Quantitative Investment Group, Inc.

 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures DKR I, LLC, managed by DKR Fusion Management L.P. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Kaiser I, LLC, managed by Kaiser Trading Group Pty. Ltd. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Transtrend I, LLC, managed by Transtrend B.V. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Transtrend II, LLC, managed by Transtrend B.V. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures WCM I,
LLC, managed by Winton Capital Management Limited 
 Morgan Stanley Spectrum Currency L.P. 
 Morgan Stanley Spectrum Technical L.P. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed Futures Campbell I, LLC, managed by Campbell & Company Inc. 
 Morgan Stanley Managed
Futures GMF I, LLC, managed by Grinham Managed Funds Pty. Ltd.
#### Paul G. Liistro et al. *v.*The Town Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Newington et al.

*I. Milton Widem,*in support of the petition.

*Wesley W. Horton,*in opposition.

Submitted July 3

decided July 17, 1974

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
### §329a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §9 (par.), as added Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §202, 49 Stat. 704, related to waiver of the requirements of sections 321 to 338 of this title for admission to membership in the case of a bank which was required to become a member of the Federal Reserve System under a former provision of subsection (y) of former section 264 of this title, which provision was repealed by act June 20, 1939, ch. 214, §2, 53 Stat. 842.

This section was based on the twelfth par. of section 9 of act Dec. 23, 1913, as amended. The twelfth par. constituted the eleventh par. of section 9 when added in 1935, and became the twelfth par. in 1950 (64 Stat. 458). For further details, see Codification note set out under section 321 of this title.