alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Michael J. Sullivan, an Attorney, Respondent. Bar Association of Nassau County, New York, Inc., Petitioner.

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the United States District Court. Respondent has filed his answer in which he admits the conviction, waives a hearing and sets forth extenuating facts and circumstances. Despite all the extenuating circumstances, we cannot overlook the respondent’s violation of the law. Under the circumstances, however, we believe the interests of justice will best be served by a censure. Accordingly, the respondent is hereby censured for Ms misconduct in violating the laws of the Federal Government. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld. Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 545 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2017 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. ERNST, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELLER, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. WICKER, 

and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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 ‘‘National Right-to5 Work Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 545 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA2 TIONS ACT. 

3 (a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.—Section 7 of the Na4 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘au6 thorized in section 8(a)(3)’’. 

7 (b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.—Section 8 of the 

8 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘: Pro11 vided, That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining 

12 membership’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (b)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to 

15 discriminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘re16 taining membership’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered 

18 by an agreement authorized under subsection 

19 (a)(3) of this section’’; and 

20 (3) in subsection (f)— 

21 (A) by striking clause (2) and redesig22 nating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and 

23 (3), respectively; and 

24 (B) by striking ‘‘Provided, That nothing in 

25 this subsection shall set aside the final proviso 

26 to section 8(a)(3) of this Act:’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 545 IS

1 (c) ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The 

2 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in section 9 (29 U.S.C. 159), by striking 

5 subsection (e); 

6 (2) in section 3(b), by striking ‘‘or (e)’’; and 

7 (3) in section 8(f), as amended by subsection 

8 (b)(3), by striking ‘‘or 9(e)’’. 

9 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

10 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

11 is amended by striking the Eleventh paragraph under the 

12 heading for general duties. 

13 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, 

15 shall apply to any agreement entered into or renewed after 

16 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
### §511q. Short title

This chapter may be cited as "The Tobacco Inspection Act."

(Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 623, §18, 49 Stat. 735.)
Exhibit 10.49

                           Memorandum of Understanding

Party A: Shangdong Shengda Technology Co., Ltd.

Party B: Faith Bloom Limited.

Whereas: The Shangdong Shengda Technology Co., Ltd (hereafter referred as "Party
A") has legally gained the land-use right of the land (described below) on April
30, 2005 for fifty years (from April 30,2005 to April 30,2055) and is developing
the land:

      Location of the Land: East of the 312 National Highway,  North of Tai Ping
      Ling Village, Yang Gu Town, Qian county, Shaanxi Province, China.
      Land Area: 251,285 sq.m.
      Land-use Right Certificate No.: Qian Guo Yong (2005) Zi No. 019;

Whereas(pound)(0)  Faith Bloom Limited (hereafter referred as "Party B"), a duly
organized British Virgin Islands company, intents to rent the land-use right and
the establishments on the land for nano manufacture following the development of
the land by Party A;

Whereas:  Party A intents to lease the land-use right and the  establishments on
the land to Party B for nano material manufacture;

The two parties hereby agree to sign this Memorandum to make the commitments:

1.    Party A agrees to lease its land-use right and the  establishments  on the
      land to Party B for nano material  manufacture without any delay following
      the  completion of the  development of the land by Party A and the receipt
      of all the relevant certificates and permits (including the certificate of
      ownership of building) for said land required under relevant  stipulations
      of real estate laws and regulations of China by Party A.

2.    Party B agrees to lease the land-use right and the  establishments  on the
      land at a fair market prize after the completion of the development of the
      land by  Party A and the  receipt  of all the  relevant  certificates  and
      permits  (including  certificate  of ownership of building)  for said land
      required under relevant  stipulations  of real estate laws and regulations
      of China by Party A.

3.    Party A agrees to grant Party B, in the Lease  Agreement to be executed by
      both parties,  no worse terms or treatment  than those terms and treatment
      in the Land Use Right and Building  Lease  Agreements  between Party A and

<PAGE>

      Shandong Haize  Nanomaterials  Co., or Shandong Bang Sheng  Chemicals Co.,
      and the  corresponding  amendments and supplements,  granted by Party A to
      lessees:  Shandong  Haize  Nanomaterials  Co., Ltd and Shandong Bang Sheng
      Chemicals Co., Ltd, respectively.

This  Memorandum is written in Chinese and there are two original copies of this
Agreement, with one copy held by each party.

This  Memorandum  shall become  effective upon the signature and seal of the two
parties' legal representatives or authorized representatives on March 21, 2006.


Party A: Shangdong Shengda Technology Co., Ltd.

Authorized Representative: /s/ Shangdong Shengda Technology
                          ----------------------------------


Party B: Faith Bloom Limited.

Authorized Representative: /s/ Xiangzhi Chen
                          ----------------------------------
§ 989.1 Purpose. ( a ) This part implements the Air Force Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) and provides procedures for environmental impact analysis both within the United States and abroad. Because the authority for, and rules governing, each aspect of the EIAP differ depending on whether the action takes place in the United States or outside the United States, this part provides largely separate procedures for each type of action. Consequently, the main body of this part deals primarily with environmental impact analysis under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Public Law 91-190, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 4321 through 4347), while the primary procedures for environmental impact analysis of actions outside the United States in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, are contained in §§ 989.37 and 989.38.
( b ) The procedures in this part are essential to achieve and maintain compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, referred to as the “CEQ Regulations”). Further requirements are contained in Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 4715.1, Environmental Security, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis, DoDD 5000.1, Defense Acquisition, and Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Automated Information System Acquisition Programs.[1] To comply with NEPA and complete the EIAP, the CEQ Regulations and this part must be used together.
( c ) Air Force activities abroad will comply with this part, E. O. 12114, and 32 CFR part 187 (DoDD 6050.7, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Department of Defense Actions, March 31, 1979). To comply with E.O. 12114 and complete the EIAP, the Executive Order, 32 CFR part 187, and this part must be used together.
( d ) Appendix A is a glossary of references, abbreviations, acronyms, and terms. Refer to 40 CFR 1508 for definitions of other terminology used in this part.
[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16868, Mar. 28, 2001] Footnotes -
989.1
[1] Copies of the publications are available, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
§ 761.9 Entry Control Commanders. The following commanders are designated Entry Control Commanders with authority to approve or disapprove individual entry authorizations for persons, ships, or aircraft as indicated (Commander Seventeenth Coast Guard District has been designated an Entry Control Commander by the authority of the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard and Commander, Western Area, U.S. Coast Guard); ( a ) *Chief of Naval Operations.* Authorization for all persons, ships, or aircraft to enter all defense areas.
( b ) *Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.* Authorization for all persons, ships, or aircraft to enter defense areas in the Atlantic.
( c ) *Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.* Authorization for all persons, ships, or aircraft to enter defense areas in the Pacific.
( d ) *Commander U.S. Naval Forces Caribbean.* Authorization for all persons, ships, and aircraft to enter the Guantanamo Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area and the Guantanamo Naval Airspace Reservation. (This authority delegated to Commander U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay.)
( e ) *Commander U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay.* Authorization for all persons, ships, and aircraft to enter the Guantanamo Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area and the Guantanamo Naval Airspace Reservation.
( f ) *Commander Third Fleet.* Authorization for U.S. citizens and U.S. registered private vessels to enter Midway Island, Kingman Reef, Kaneohe Bay Naval Defensive Sea Area, Pearl Harbor Defensive Sea Area and Filipino workers employed by U.S. contractors to enter Wake Island.
( g ) *Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Marianas.* Authorization in conjunction with the High Commissioner, for non-U.S. citizens, ships, or aircraft documented under laws other than those of the United States or the Trust Territory to enter those portions of the Trust Territory where entry is not controlled by the Department of the Army or the Defense Nuclear Agency.
( h ) *Senior naval commander in defense area.* Emergency authorization for persons, ships, or aircraft in cases of emergency or distress. In all cases the Chief of Naval Operations, and as appropriate, the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet or the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and other interested commands, shall be informed immediately of the nature of the emergency, and action taken.
( i ) *U.S. Coast Guard.* The U.S. Coast Guard regulates the movement of shipping within the Honolulu Harbor under the authority of Executive Orders 10173 and 10289; such shipping is considered to be under U.S. authorized supervision within the meaning of Executive Order 8987. The Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District, as representative of the Secretary of the Navy, retains responsibility for security of the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area, as required by naval interest, and, as such, issues amplifying instructions relating to the Honolulu Defensive Sea Area.
[41 FR 28958, July 14, 1976]
§ 552.153 Dissemination. ( a ) Unit commanders and supervisors shall ensure that newly assigned or attached military and civilian personnel are informed of the prohibitions contained in this regulation. Soldiers-in-training will be informed of the provisions of this regulation at the beginning of each training cycle.
( b ) All permanent party personnel and civilian employees will be reminded annually of their duty to comply with this part.
Exhibit 32










                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
     (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), Robert C. Stempel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
     Stephan W. Zumsteg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
     do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
     2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that based on his knowledge:

         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.


     /S/ Robert C. Stempel
     ------------------------------
     Robert C. Stempel
     Chief Executive Officer
     May 10, 2005


     /S/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
     ------------------------------
     Stephan W. Zumsteg
     Chief Financial Officer
     May 10, 2005
v 

129359(6) 

K. DAVID M. LYONS-BEY, #231703 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISION, Respondent-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for reconsideration of the order of 

September 13, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED because it does not appear the order 

was entered erroneously.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

April 23, 2012 

h0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144283 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144283 

 COA: 306296 

Macomb CC: 2010-001602 FC 

JASON WILLIAM EDWARDS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 23, 2011 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6869

JIMMY D. COVINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-01-1093-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 6, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy D. Covington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy D. Covington seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 2002). Covington’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Covington that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Covington failed to timely

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Covington has waived appellate review by

failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion

for 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILFORD GARNER, IV,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1598

[August 16, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005-CF-560-A.

Wilford Garner, IV, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §174. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was from the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1946, act July 5, 1945, ch. 271, title I, 59 Stat. 423, provided for the disposition of proceeds from the sale of guayule and other rubber-bearing plants, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. Similar provisions were contained in prior appropriation acts as follows:

May 5, 1945, ch. 109, 59 Stat. 152.

June 28, 1944, ch. 296, 58 Stat. 447.

July 12, 1943, ch. 215, 57 Stat. 415.

July 2, 1942, ch. 476, title I, 56 Stat. 597.

Apr. 28, 1942, ch. 247, title III, 56 Stat. 240.
### §504. "Person" defined

The word "person" as used in this chapter shall be held to embrace also any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.

(Jan. 14, 1929, ch. 69, §4, 45 Stat. 1080.)
#### § 97.1 Purpose.

This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the release of official information in litigation and the presentation of witness testimony by Department of Defense (DoD) personnel pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Supreme Court's decision in *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 6, 2020

No. 04-19-00694-CV

Felicidad MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF LAREDO,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CVK000800D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due on September 16, 2020, but was not filed. We 

notified appellee’s counsel of the deficiency on September 22, 2020. In that notice, we 

cautioned appellee that if we did not receive an adequate response by October 2, 2020, we would 

set this appeal at issue without an appellee’s brief. On October 2, 2020, appellee filed a motion 

requesting a forty-five day extension of time to file its brief. After consideration, we GRANT

appellee’s motion and ORDER appellee to file its brief by November 2, 2020.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

Clerk of Court
#### Mark Kyler, Respondent, v. United States Trotting Association, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Arthur Frazier, Relator, v. Albert W. Skinner, as Sheriff of the County of Monroe, Respondent.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original record, five typewritten briefs, Frederick Thompson, Esq., assigned as counsel to conduct appeal, time for argument of appeal enlarged to include March 1961 Term, and otherwise motion denied.
### §3702. Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term—

(1) "bulk agricultural commodity" means any agricultural commodity that can be transported in bulk and can be temporarily stored in bulk quantities without undergoing processing or packaging. Such term also includes any commodity or product that is used by producers in the production of agricultural commodities and that can be stored or shipped in bulk, such as fertilizer and fuel;

(2) "unprocessed agricultural products" means food, fiber, and other agricultural products that have not been packaged or otherwise prepared for retail sale, including animal products and unfinished cotton, wool, leather, or any other unfinished natural material;

(3) "Secretary" means Secretary of Agriculture;

(4) "subterminal facility" means any facility that is located in the area of production or consumption of agricultural commodities or any major storage or major export point for such commodities and is located at a place that conveniently serves the needs of producers, purchasers, and consumers of bulk agricultural commodities, and is—

(A) used for the transient storage of bulk agricultural commodities and may include equipment or structures necessary for the transportation, upgrading, receiving, drying, or loading out of such commodities; or

(B) any rail siding, loading, or unloading facility that can accommodate unit railroad trains or multiple car trains and other appropriate transportation modes designed for the transport of bulk agricultural commodities and production materials; and

(5) "region" means two or more States acting together to develop a coordinated regional subterminal facilities plan.

(Pub. L. 96–358, §3, Sept. 25, 1980, 94 Stat. 1184.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in the introductory phrase, was in the original "this Act," meaning Pub. L. 96–358, Sept. 25, 1980, 94 Stat. 1184, known as the Agricultural Subterminal Facilities Act of 1980, which enacted this chapter and amended section 1932 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1980, see section 6 of Pub. L. 96–358, set out as a note under section 3701 of this title.
### §3606. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title I, §101(g), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3281

Section, Pub. L. 96–236, §6, Apr. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 337, related to protection of interests of United States consumers.