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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 764 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 764

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations 
   removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened 
           wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

    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 ``Trust the Science Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED AND 
              THREATENED WILDLIFE.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule entitled 
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf 
(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and 
published on November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).

SEC. 3. NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    Reissuance of the final rule under section 2 shall not be subject 
to judicial review.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 582.3225 Calcium sorbate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium sorbate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2015026EN.01001101.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 5 November 2014 — Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L. v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

(Case C-491/14)

(2015/C 026/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rossa dels Vents Assessoria, S.L.

Applicant:

Defendant: U Hostels Albergues Juveniles, S.L.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GULFWEST
OIL COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH
31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813779
<NAME>                        0
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    0

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        120,984
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,368,723
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,585,369
<PP&E>                        22,320,750
<DEPRECIATION>                3,053,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                21,235,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         5,262,272
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   88
<COMMON>                      16,230
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  21,235,895
<SALES>                       1,500,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,618,456
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,310,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            383,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (70,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (70,328)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (70,328)
<EPS-BASIC>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0




</TABLE>
ACCEPTED 03-14-00726-CV 5782112 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2015 10:38:40 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK 

# ALLISON & 

# WARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78731 AdamS. Ward (512) 474-8153 Fax (512) 474-9703

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court ofAppeals Third District ofTexas P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711-2547 Fed. Tax 10#47-3928623

June 22, 2015

Re: Court ofAppeals Number: 03-14-00726-CV 13-2658 Trial CourtNumber: Keely A. Allison

Style: Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. d/b/a San Marcos Treatment Centerv. VeronicaPayton
Dear Mr. Kyle:
Please be advised that Plaintiffs counsel inthe above-entitled and numbered actionhas changed, effective immediatelyto:
Allison & Ward Attorneys at Law 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78731 Phone: (512) 474-8153 Fax: (512) 474-9703 Email: allison-ward@sbcglobal.net Sincerely,Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court ofAppeals Third District ofTexas June 22, 2015 Page 2

xc: Mr. Ryan L. Clement Serpe, Jones, Andrews, Callender & Bell, PLLC AmericaTower 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77019 (VIA FAX #713-452-4499)
#### George J. Mougios *v.*Eli Burde, Trustee, et al.

*James J. Gentile,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Richard A. Silver,*for the appellants (defendants).

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. JERRY LILLY, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00137-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark L. French, CRISWELL & FRENCH, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Jerry Lilly pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and was sentenced to eighty-four months’ imprisonment in a medical facility. Lilly’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in denying Lilly’s motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5H1.4 (2007). Lilly was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government declined to file a reply brief. Finding no error, we affirm. Lilly’s counsel questions the district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure based on Lilly’s advanced heart

condition. See USSG § 5H1.4 (authorizing departure based on “extraordinary physical impairment”). A district court’s refusal to depart from the applicable guidelines range does not provide a basis for appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006), “unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so.”

United States v. Brewer , 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). The record confirms the district court thoroughly considered Lilly’s written and oral arguments in support of a departure. In fact, in this regard, the district court heard extensive testimony

23 from Lilly’s cardiologist. It is thus apparent that the court understood its authority to depart but determined that a downward departure was not warranted. Accordingly, this claim is not cognizable on appeal.

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Lilly’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Lilly, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lilly requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lilly. 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DENNIS FREDERICK MADDREY, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 428 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 7th day of October, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3129 Disodium 1-amino-4-[[4-[(2-bromo-1-oxoallyl)amino]-2-sulfonatophenyl]amino]-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxoanthracene-2-sulfonate. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive is disodium 1-amino-4-[[4-[(2-bromo-1-oxoallyl)amino]-2-sulfonatophenyl]amino]-9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxoanthracene-2-sulfonate (Reactive Blue 69) (CAS Reg. No. 70209-99-3, Colour Index No. 612037).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substance listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a color additive in contact lenses in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization and compliance with this use shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the contact lenses in which the additive is used.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements in § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[76 FR 25235, May 4, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 14664, Mar. 7, 2013]
§ 556.597 Semduramicin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of semduramicin is 3 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for semduramicin are: ( 1 ) *Chickens.* ( i ) Liver: 400 ppb.
( ii ) Muscle: 130 ppb.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 558.555 of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,010,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                    62,700
<INVENTORY>                                  5,576,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,952,919
<PP&E>                                       8,615,153
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,941,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,341,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,447,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        324
<COMMON>                                        94,469
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,345,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,341,234
<SALES>                                      3,522,502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,118,779
<CGS>                                        2,793,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,524,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (16,246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             245,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,428,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,428,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,428,377)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)


</TABLE>
#### § 520.2473 Tioxidazole oral dosage forms.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DAVID KERMES,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELA ND SECURITY

, Respondent

______________________

2015

- 3148

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision by Edna
E.J. Francis.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J IM C ALLE , Law Office of Jim E. Calle, P.C., Tucson, AZ, argued for petitioner.

C HRISTOPHER K EITH W IMBUSH , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER

, R OBERT E.

K IRSCHMAN

, J R

., A LLISON K IDD -M ILLE R

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, S CHALL and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 14, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
§ 524.390 Chloramphenicol ophthalmic ointment. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each gram contains 10 milligrams chloramphenicol.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 043264 and 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply every 3 hours around the clock for 48 hours, after which night instillations may be omitted.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis caused by pathogens susceptible to chloramphenicol.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Federal law prohibits the use of this drug in food-producing animals.
[77 FR 4897, Feb. 1, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 64717, Oct. 23, 2012; 79 FR 10967, Feb. 27, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1527

WILLIE H. MITCHELL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GMAC; INTEGON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (CA-03-56-2-FL) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie H. Mitchell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Carpenter Prentiss, HORHNTAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Willie H. Mitchell, Jr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against GMAC and Integon Insurance Company for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mitchell v. GMAC , No. CA-03-56-2-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2014421EN.01005301.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/53

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — De Bruin v Parliament

(Case F-15/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Probationer - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Report on the probationary period - Extension of the probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Grounds for dismissal - Performance - Hasty performance of tasks - Manifest errors of assessment - Irregularities in the procedure - Period given to the Reports Committee to deliver its opinion))

2014/C 421/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evert Anton De Bruin (Lent, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament to terminate the applicant’s employment contract at the end of the extension period of his probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr De Bruin to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr De Bruin to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 40.

1

---
§ 524.230 Buprenorphine. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter (mL) of solution contains 20 milligrams (mg) buprenorphine. The drug is supplied in tubes containing 0.4 mL (8 mg) or 1.0 mL (20 mg).
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer topically to the dorsal cervical area at the base of the skull a single dose of 1.2 to 3.1 mg/lb (2.7 to 6.7 mg/kg) approximately 1 to 2 hours before surgery.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the control of postoperative pain associated with surgical procedures in cats.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Buprenorphine is a Schedule III controlled substance.
[87 FR 58962, Sept. 29, 2022]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41262 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SALVADOR ANDRADE-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1045-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Salvador Andrade-Gonzalez (Andrade) appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by attempting to re-enter the United States without permission after deportation. Andrade argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 41-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony andNo. 05-41262 -2- aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Andrade’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Andrade properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Andrade also argues that his sentence runs afoul of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because he was sentenced pursuant to a pre-Booker mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court committed Fanfan error by sentencing Andrade pursuant to a mandatory guidelines system.
See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). As the Government concedes, Andrade’s objection under Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), at sentencing preserved his claim for appeal. See United States v. RodriguezMesa , 443 F.3d 397, 404 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, review is for harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.No. 05-41262 -3- The Government fails to carry its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect Andrade’s
sentence. See United States v. Sibley , 448 F.3d 754, 760 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no indication in the record that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had the Guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory. See id. We therefore vacate Andrade’s sentence and remand the case for resentencing in accordance with Booker
. CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
§ 520.1780 Pimobendan tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each chewable tablet contains 1.25, 2.5, 5, or 10 milligrams (mg) pimobendan.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000010 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally at a total daily dose of 0.23 mg per pound (0.5 mg per kilogram) body weight, using a suitable combination of whole or half tablets. The total daily dose should be divided into two portions administered approximately 12 hours apart.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the management of the signs of mild, moderate, or severe congestive heart failure in dogs due to clinical myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM); for use with concurrent therapy for congestive heart failure (*e.g.,* furosemide, etc.) as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[72 FR 27733, May 17, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 18158, Apr. 1, 2014; 87 FR 10968, Feb. 28, 2022; 89 FR 42357, May 15, 2024]
#### § 573.860 Polysorbate 80.

The food additive polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate) may be safely used as an emulsifier in milk-replacer formulations for calves.