alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021261DE.01006001.xml

| 22.7.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 261/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 261/60

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2019/2033 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 27. November 2019 über Aufsichtsanforderungen an Wertpapierfirmen und zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EU) Nr. 1093/2010, (EU) Nr. 575/2013, (EU) Nr. 600/2014 und (EU) Nr. 806/2014

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 314 vom 5. Dezember 2019
  )

Seite 49, Artikel 62 Absatz 1:

Anstatt:

| „1. | Der Titel erhält folgende Fassung:

  ‚Verordnung (EU) Nr. 575/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über Aufsichtsanforderungen an Wertpapierfirmen und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012‘
  “ |
| --- | --- |

„1.

‚Verordnung (EU) Nr. 575/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über Aufsichtsanforderungen an Wertpapierfirmen und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012‘
  “

muss es heißen:

| „1. | Der Titel erhält folgende Fassung:

  ‚Verordnung (EU) Nr. 575/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über Aufsichtsanforderungen an Kreditinstitute und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012‘
  “ |
| --- | --- |

„1.

‚Verordnung (EU) Nr. 575/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 26. Juni 2013 über Aufsichtsanforderungen an Kreditinstitute und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012‘
  “

---
# L_2021167DE.01005201.xml

| 12.5.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 167/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 167/52

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (GASP) 2020/792 des Rates vom 11. Juni 2020 zur Änderung der Gemeinsamen Aktion 2008/124/GASP über die Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmission der Europäischen Union im Kosovo (*)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 193 vom 17. Juni 2020
  )

Auf der Titelseite im Inhaltsverzeichnis und auf Seite 9, Titel des Beschlusses:

Anstatt:

„
  Beschluss (GASP) 2020/792 des Rates vom 11. Juni 2020 zur Änderung der Gemeinsamen Aktion 2008/124/GASP über die Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmission der Europäischen Union im Kosovo *
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  Beschluss (GASP) 2020/792 des Rates vom 11. Juni 2020 zur Änderung der Gemeinsamen Aktion 2008/124/GASP über die Rechtsstaatlichkeitsmission der Europäischen Union im Kosovo * (EULEX KOSOVO)
  “.

---

(*)  Diese Bezeichnung berührt nicht die Standpunkte zum Status und steht im Einklang mit der Resolution 1244 (1999) des VN-Sicherheitsrates und dem Gutachten des Internationalen Gerichtshofs zur Unabhängigkeitserklärung des Kosovos.

*

---
II

Calendar No. 298

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 134

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 21, 1995

Received and read the first time

DECEMBER 22, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of

4 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,

5 and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts,

6 and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corpora7 tions and other organizational units of Government for the

8 fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, namely:
2

HJ 134 PCS

1 SEC. 101. ENSURED PAYMENT DURING FISCAL YEAR 1996

2 OF VETERANS’ BENEFITS IN EVENT OF LACK

3 OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 (a) PAYMENTS REQUIRED.—In any case during fiscal

5 year 1996 in which appropriations are not otherwise avail6 able for programs, projects, and activities of the Depart7 ment of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Af8 fairs shall nevertheless ensure that—

9 (1) payments of existing veterans benefits are

10 made in accordance with regular procedures and

11 schedules and in accordance with eligibility require12 ments for such benefits; and

13 (2) payments to contractors of the Veterans

14 Health Administration of the Department of Veter15 ans Affairs are made when due in the case of serv16 ices provided that directly relate to patient health

17 and safety.

18 (b) FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated such

19 sums as may be necessary for the payments pursuant to

20 subsection (a), including such amounts as may be nec21 essary for the costs of administration of such payments.

22 (c) CHARGING OF ACCOUNTS WHEN APPROPRIA23 TIONS MADE.—In any case in which the Secretary uses

24 the authority of subsection (a) to make payments, applica25 ble accounts shall be charged for amounts so paid, and

26 for the costs of administration of such payments, when
3

HJ 134 PCS

1 regular appropriations become available for those pur2 poses.

3 (d) EXISTING BENEFITS SPECIFIED.—For purposes

4 of this section, existing veterans benefits are benefits

5 under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Af6 fairs that have been adjudicated and authorized for pay7 ment as of—

8 (1) December 15, 1995; or

9 (2) if appropriations for such benefits are avail10 able (other than pursuant to subsection (b)) after

11 December 15, 1995, the last day on which appro12 priations for payment of such benefits are available

13 (other than pursuant to subsection (b)).

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 298

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 134

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.

DECEMBER 22, 1995

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Edmund Darrow to William Peet for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided July 31st, 1883.)

Though twenty-five years have not elapsed since the execution of an assignment for the benefit of creditors, the court will refuse an application to compel the assignee to account where the assignor and the creditors have slumbered for many years upon their rights, and the assignee, by reason of the loss of papers, and the death of many persons with whom transactions in the settlement of the estate were had, would he put to great disadvantage in accounting.

Where there is nothing to explain the laches of the assignor and the creditors, and where no fraud or embezzlement is charged against the assignee, the parties will be left to an action for an accounting.

*142Application for a citation to an assignee for the benefit of creditors to account.

The application was made by the assignor and a creditor.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Van Hoesen, J.

Mr. Darrow, in 1861, made an assignment. In 1883, for the first time, he asks for an accounting. Nothing has ¡irevented him from making an earlier demand, and naturally the long delay challenges inquiry as to his motive in exhuming the remains of the assignment. As twenty-five years have not elapsed since the assignment was executed, the statute of limitations cannot be interposed by the assignee as a bar, but nevertheless the reasons he gives for objecting to an accounting at this late day address themselves to the discretion of the court. The death of so many persons who had knowledge of the proceedings, taken more than twenty years ago by the assignee, for the winding up of the estate, the loss of papers showing what those proceedings were, the silence of the assignor for so long a time, and the acquiescence of the creditors of Darrow, show not merely that it would be difficult for the assignee now to prepare an account, but also that in settling the estate years ago, the assignee did nothing that called for an appeal by Darrow or his creditors to the court. Vigilance is the duty of the assignor as well as of the assignee. Why has Darrow suddenly awakened to the necessity for an accounting ? Why has Ailing just discovered that there are in the hands of Mr. Peet moneys to which he is entitled ? If Mr. Darrow and Mr. Ailing are really anxious for an accounting, let them, after having waited so many years, go into a court of equity, where *they will*not only obtain an account, but also incur the risk of costs incase their action is dismissed. If there were reason to suspect fraud or embezzlement on the part of the assignee, or if any reasonable excuse existed for the long delay of the assignor and Mr. Ailing to compel an accounting, I should unhesitatingly require Mr. peet to file an account. But, upon the case disclosed by the papers, I shall *143deny the application, and leave Mr. Darroxv and Mr. Ailing to their remedy by action.

Application denied.
§ 46.4371-4 Records required with respect to foreign insurance policies. ( a ) Each person required under the provisions of § 46.4374-1 to remit the tax imposed by section 4371 shall keep or cause to be kept accurate records of all policies or other instruments subject to such tax upon which premiums have been paid. Such records must identify each such policy or other instrument in such a manner as to clearly establish the following: ( 1 ) The gross premium paid;
( 2 ) whether such policy or other instrument is ( i ) a policy of casualty insurance or an indemnity bond subject to tax under section 4371(1),
( ii ) a policy of life, sickness, or accident insurance or an annuity contract subject to tax under section 4371(2), or
( iii ) a policy of reinsurance subject to tax under section 4371(3);
( 3 ) the identity of the insured (as defined in section 4372(d));
( 4 ) the identity of the foreign insurer or reinsurer (as defined in section 4372(a)); and
( 5 ) the total premium charged and, if the premium is to be paid in installments, the amount and anniversary date of each such installment.
( b ) The records required under the provisions of this section must be kept on file at the place of business or at some other convenient location, for a period of at least 3 years from the date any part of the tax became due or the date any part of the tax is paid, whichever is later, in such manner as to be readily accessible to authorized internal revenue officers or employees. The person having control or possession of a policy or other instrument subject to tax under section 4371 shall retain such policy or other instrument for at least 3 years from the date any part of the tax with respect to such policy was paid.
[T.D. 7023, 35 FR 1012, Jan. 24, 1970. Redesignated by T.D. 8328, 56 FR 189, Jan. 3, 1991, as amended by T.D. 8442, 57 FR 48186, Oct. 22, 1992]
#### § 12.3 Sale of tobacco products in vending machines prohibited.

The sale of tobacco products in vending machines located in or around any Federal building under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury is prohibited, except in areas designated pursuant to § 12.5 of this part.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50523 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALEJANDRO BALDERRAMA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 925

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alejandro Balderrama challenges the 168

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction of conspiring to im port more than five kilograms of cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. He
contends his attorney provided inadequate assistance at sentencing by failing

to : object to the two

- level increase in his offense level for recruitment of a
minor ; ask the court to recommend his placement in the 500

- hour drug and

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 1, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50523 Document: 00513401352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2016No. 15

- 50523

2 a lcohol program ; and object to the inclusion of certain relevant conduct in the calculation of his base

- offense level. Generally, our court does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829 , 841 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 123 ( 2014 ). “We have undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). In most instances, a claim qualifies as a “rare case” warranting review only when it was raised and developed in a post

trial motion to the district court. United States v. Stevens , 487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 2007).
B ecause B alderrama did not raise his ineffective

- assistance claims in district court during the trial proceedings, the court did not have evidence from

tr ial counsel or make any findings for whether counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. Instead, Balderrama raised ineffective

- assistance claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; but, the court dismissed his claims without prejudice, and determined only that he should be permitted to file an

out

- of

- time direct appeal. In short, altho ugh Balderrama contends otherwise, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for fair consideration of these
claim s . T herefore , we decline to consider them on direct appeal , without prejudice , of course, to Balderrama ’s right to raise them on coll ateral review. See Isgar , 739 F.3d at 841. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-50523 Document: 00513401352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2016
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41463-41464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19629]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11694 and <greek-i>11695; North 
Dakota Disaster Number ND-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for

[[Page 41464]]

the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated 03/24/2009.
    Incident: Severe storms and flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/13/2009 through 08/10/2009.
    Effective Date: 08/10/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North 
Dakota, dated 03/24/2009, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 03/13/2009 and continuing through 
08/10/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-19629 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 135 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 135

  To establish a joint committee to oversee the conduct of Operation 
                    Joint Endeavor/Task Force Eagle.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 1995

    Mr. Dornan introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To establish a joint committee to oversee the conduct of Operation 
                    Joint Endeavor/Task Force Eagle.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That a joint committee be 
appointed to inquire into the conduct of Operation Joint Endeavor/Task 
Force Eagle, vested with power to send for papers and persons and to 
sit during sessions of either House of Congress.
    The joint committee shall be comprised of the chairman of the House 
National Security Committee, each of the respective chairmen of each of 
the several subcommittees of the House National Security Committee, the 
ranking member of the House National Security Committee plus two 
additional members appointed by the ranking member, the chairman of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking member 
of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the chairman 
of the House International Relations Committee, the ranking member of 
the House International Relations Committee, the chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, the respective chairmen of each of the 
several subcommittees of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee plus two 
additional members appointed by the ranking member, the chairman of the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking member of the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, and the ranking member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee.
    The joint committee shall be cochaired by the chairman of the House 
National Security Committee and the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 22-0389

KELLY DEAN WORTHAN, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT EXTENSION

On Appeal from the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, 

Ravalli County, the Honorable Jennifer B. Lint, Presiding

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Appellant, Kelly Worthan’s Motion for Extension 

until October 1, 2022, in the above-entitled matter is GRANTED.

Date Justice of the Montana Supreme Court

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 23 2022

08/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0389
Page 1 of 19
Page 2 of 19
Page 3 of 19
Page 4 of 19
Page 5 of 19
Page 6 of 19
Page 7 of 19
Page 8 of 19
Page 9 of 19
Page 10 of 19
Page 11 of 19
Page 12 of 19
Page 13 of 19
Page 14 of 19
Page 15 of 19
Page 16 of 19
Page 17 of 19
Page 18 of 19
Page 19 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHARLENE COLLINS LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES TREASURY 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 22-1835 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Charlene Collins Lee, proceeding pro se, brought this action against the U.S. 

Treasury Department “in conjunction with the Secret Service” seeking among other things, 

“several hearings to ward off any lingering federal and state employment stalkings.” Dkt. 1 at 1; 

Dkt. 1-2 at 1. For the following reasons, the Court will sua sponte dismiss the complaint without 

prejudice. 

Complaints by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even a pro se litigant, 

however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 

237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a 

complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This requirement “ensures that the opposing party will receive ‘fair 

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Jones v. Changsila, 271 F. 

Supp. 3d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). “Where a 

complaint is insufficiently focused, it places an undue burden on the defendant to answer or 
2

move[,] and it invites unnecessary delay and confusion in the proceedings.” Achagzai v. Broad. 

Bd. of Governors, 109 F. Supp. 3d 67, 71 (D.D.C. 2015). In addition, Rule 12(b)(6) entitles an 

opposing party to dismissal if the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007)).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) because it does not allege 

any facts that would allow the Court to discern the substance of Plaintiff’s claims or to determine 

whether, if true, her allegations would entitle her to relief. See Brown v. Wash. Metro. Area 

Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016). The Court will, therefore, sua sponte

dismiss the complaint without prejudice. See Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 42 F. 

Supp. 3d 102, 109 n.3 (D.D.C. 2014). 

A separate order will issue.

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: July 6, 2022
#### In the Matter of Ayana Jean L., Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Sandra Jean L., Respondent; Phillip Jean L., Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 104]

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated August 5, 2004, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 31, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that he neglected the subject child, released the child to the custody of the mother for a period of 12 months, and thereafter to his custody and that of the mother under the supervision of a child protective agency, social services official, or duly authorized agency, and granted an order of protection, inter alia, directing him to stay away from the subject child for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as granted an order of protection is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the order of protection has expired *(see Matter of Matthew C.,*300 AD2d 394 [2002]; *Matter of Joey T.,*185 AD2d 851 [1992]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the testimony adduced at *473the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he exercised inadequate guardianship *(see Matter of Alan B.,*267 AD2d 306 [1999]), and neglected the child by virtue of his abuse of marijuana, which placed the physical, mental, and emotional condition of the child in imminent danger of becoming impaired *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [a] [iii]; *Matter of Sade W. 2001,*286 AD2d 770 [2001]; *Matter of Shyasia L.,*286 AD2d 391, 391-392 [2001]; *Matter of Krewsean S.,*273 AD2d 393, 394 [2000]; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs.*v *Margaret D.,*221 AD2d 439 [1995]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.