alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Felix Bautista, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appellate Advocates (Samuel Barr of counsel), for appellant.Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kim Petersen, J.), rendered September 5, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposed sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), seeking leave to withdraw as counsel.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders v California</i> (386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (<i>see id.</i>;<i> People v Murray</i>, 169 AD3d 227 [2019]; <i>Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.]</i>, 89 AD3d 252 [2011]; <i>People v Paige</i>, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; <i>cf. People v Gonzalez</i>, 47 NY2d 606 [1979]).</p><p>ALIOTTA, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 22, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IB

Union Calendar No. 245

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2816

[Report No. 104–511]

To reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline under the Federal

Power Act applicable to the construction of, a hydroelectric project in

Ohio, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 20, 1995

Mr. NEY (for himself and Mr. REGULA) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Commerce

MARCH 28, 1996

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

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline under

the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of, a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2816 RH

1 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE AND EXTENSION

2 DEADLINE.

3 Notwithstanding the expiration of the license and

4 notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of

5 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would other6 wise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

7 project numbered 3218, the Commission shall, at the re8 quest of the licensee for the project, reinstate the license

9 effective September 25, 1993, and extend the time period

10 during which the licensee is required to commence the con11 struction of the project so as to terminate on September

12 24, 1999.
Union Calendar No. 245

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2816

[Report No. 104–511]

A BILL

To reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline

and for other purposes.construction of, a hydroelectric project in Ohio,under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

MARCH 28, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
# L_2020211EN.01002201.xml

| 3.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/22

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 208 of 1 July 2020
  )

On the cover page and on page 2, the title:

for:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumtaping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036’,

read:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/909 of 30 June 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036’.

---
# C_2005155EN.01001601.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 April 2005

in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark CELLTECH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 155/31)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-260/03: Celltech R&D Ltd, established in Slough, Berkshire (United Kingdom), represented by D. Alexander, barrister, and N. Jenkins, solicitor, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and A. Folliard-Monguiral) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark CELLTECH, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2003 (Case R 659/2002-2);

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

2.

Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.

1

---
Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
Southeast Region

P.O. Box 64513640 U.S. Highway 1Hobe Sound, FL 33475-0645(772) 546-6141FAX: (772) 545-7572E-mail: hobesound@fws.gov

Southeast Region Fish& Wildlife ServiceU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Home PageDepartment of the InteriorUSA.govAbout the U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceAccessibilityPrivacyNoticesDisclaimerFOIA
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. ER06-615-000;ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; ER09-1048-000; ER09-1281-000; ER01-313-009] 

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on the following dates members of its staff will participate in teleconferences and meetings to be conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences and meetings are available on the CAISO Web site,                     *http://www.caiso.com.*

August 26, 2009 2001-2003 Grid Management Charge Refund 

August 27, 2009 Convergence Bidding, Large Generator Interconnection Procedures, Tariff Revisions 

August 28, 2009 Real Time Imbalance Energy Offset 

August 31, 2009 Scarcity Pricing Meeting 

September 1, 2009 Systems Interface User Group 

September 2, 2009 Congestion Revenue Rights Settlements and Market Clearing User Group 

September 3, 2009 Market Issues 

September 8, 2009 Systems Interface User Group, Congestion Revenue Rights Enhancement 

September 9, 2009 Congestion Revenue Rights Settlements and Market Clearing User Group 

Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meetings are open to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and meetings may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets. 

                    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at                     *saeed.farrokhpay@ferc.gov;*                     (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at                     *maury.kruth@ferc.gov,*                     (916) 294-0275.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-20941 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# Armenia

244 items

        -    Report  		Armenia	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Armenia	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Armenia	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Armenia	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance  		Democracy Commission Small Grants Program Evaluation [PDF]	  April 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Armenia	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Armenia	   
        -    Report  		Armenia	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Armenia	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Armenia	  May 29, 2018 

previous page1…2122232425next page

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2924 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2924

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
  To guarantee the timely payment of social security benefits in March 
                                  1996.

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

SECTION 1. TIMELY PAYMENT OF MARCH 1996 SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 
              GUARANTEED.

    (a) Findings.--
        (1) Congress intends to pass an increase in the public debt 
    limit before March 1, 1996.
        (2) In the interim, social security beneficiaries should be 
    assured that social security benefits will be paid on a timely 
    basis in March 1996.
    (b) Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments.--In addition to 
any other authority provided by law, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
issue under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, obligations of 
the United States before March 1, 1996, in an amount equal to the 
monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social 
Security Act in March 1996.
    (c) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
        (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (b) shall 
    not be taken into account in applying the limitation in section 
    3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
        (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
    apply on the earlier of--
            (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase in the 
        limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, or
            (B) March 15, 1996.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saeb Abdel Majid DABBAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50487.

D.C. No. CR-00-45-RAP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 23, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Saeb Abdel Majid Dabbas appeals the judgment of conviction and his 37 month sentence following his guilty plea to unlaw*520ful reentry of a deported alien. Dabbas contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court improperly imposed a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) because the government neither pled in the indictment nor established through the guilty plea that Dabbas had been deported subsequent to a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Dabbas also contends that *Apprendi*renders inapplicable *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense). These arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *amended*(Feb.8, 2001) (order).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *520courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
698 A.2d 62

#### LA MAR-GATE, INC., v. Eugene B. SPITZ, Eleanor R.Spitz, General Electric Credit Corporation, First Keystone Federal Savings Bank and Atlantic Financial Federal. Petition of Eugene B. SPITZ.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 8, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, but LIMITED to the following issue:

1. Whether a personal guaranty, signed by a general partner and pledged pursuant to a loan transaction regarding the partnership, is surplusage or a nullity, where the general partner who signed the guaranty is also a signatory to a note given by the partnership in connection with the loan transaction.
HomeGhana

# Ghana

111 items

        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing on African Lion 22	  June 28, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Deputy Secretary of Commerce, Don Graves	  June 21, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Ghana	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Witkowsky’s Travel to Ghana	  May 25, 2022 
        -    		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Foreign Ministers from Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Senegal Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 18, 2022United Nations HeadquartersNew York, New York 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ghana	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		The U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability: Priority Countries and Region	  April 1, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		The Spirit of Partnership:  Implementing the U.S. Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 1, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Ghana National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 6, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Phee’s Travel to Ghana and Burkina Faso	  October 16, 2021 

previous page1…45678…12next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,953,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,953,506
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,259,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,978
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,249,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,259,178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               652,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               353,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                299,242
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            299,242
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 800.214 Critical infrastructure.

The term *critical infrastructure* means, in the context of a particular covered control transaction, systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems or assets would have a debilitating impact on national security.
#### Joseph FOX and Florence Fox, his wife, Petitioners, v. E. B. M. EDWARDS, D. O., Leroy Benoay, D. O., James J. Costello, D. 0., and Doctors Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Doctors General Hospital, Respondents (two cases).

Nos. 78-1514, 78-1515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1978.

Robyn Greene of Greene & Cooper and Stanley M. Rosenblatt, P. A., Miami, for petitioners.

Bruce S. Schwartz of Schwartz, Klein & Steinhardt, North Miami Beach, for respondents — E. B. M. Edwards, D. 0. and Leroy Benoay, D. 0.

*851Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, and William deF. Thompson, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent — Doctors Hospital.

Raymond J. Dwyer of Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard, Miami, for respondent — James J. Costello.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the petitions for writ of certiorari in these consolidated cases and the responses thereto, the petitions for writ of certiorari are DENIED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
#### M. A. T., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. VV-264.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 1, 1981.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1981.

Michael Allen, Public Defender, and Nancy A. Daniels, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*1025PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Pons v. State,*278 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
#### Howell PEACOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 58591.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 8, 1981.

Thomas S. Keith and Louis G. Carres, Asst., Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Doris E. Jenkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

ALDERMAN, Justice.

Howell Peacock was charged with violating section 943.462(3), Florida Statutes (1977), Florida’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. His motion to dismiss on the basis that the RICO Act is unconstitutional was denied, and he pleaded nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the constitutional challenges.

The Second Judicial Circuit public defender was appointed to prosecute Peacock’s appeal. In his brief filed in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the public defender addresses the constitutional challenges raised below and represents that the record does not support these challenges.1

We have considered the record and the constitutional issues. We find they are without merit and, accordingly, affirm the conviction. *State v. Whiddon,*384 So.2d 1269 (Fla.1980); *Moorehead v. State,*383 So.2d 629 (Fla.1980).

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1

. The public defender, in his *Anders*brief, requested that Peacock be given an opportunity to file a brief in his own behalf. The clerk of the Supreme Court has attempted to notify Peacock at his last known address that he had until a date certain to file a brief in his own behalf, but the notification was not accepted at this last known address because he was not residing there. The clerk’s notification was marked “return to sender.”
- TE Home
- About
- Remarks
- Technology Solutions
- Programs
- Defeat Disinfo
- Resources
- Events
- Contact Us

HomeGlobal Engagement Center...Technology Engagement Division

# Technology Engagement Division

## 								Mission							

        -  **The Technology Engagement Division’s Mission:** To defend against foreign disinformation and propaganda by transitioning technologies from concept to application at scale and in support of smart policies and operations. TE leads U.S. Government innovation efforts by convening technology experts and programmatic authorities from the public and private sectors, and pushes innovation against this key problem. TE has developed a dedicated effort for the U.S. Government to identify, assess, test and implement technologies against the problems of foreign propaganda and disinformation, in cooperation with foreign partners, private industry and academia. 

## 							Discover More						

		Technology Engagement Division Snapshot 2022			(5 MB)Read more 

		Defeat Disinfo		Read more 

		Events – Technology Engagement Division		Read more 

		Tech Demos		Read more 

		Disinfo Cloud Blog		Read more 

Back to Top