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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 281 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 281

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

 Mr. Hobson (for himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Chabot, 
    Mr. Gillmor, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. 
  LaTourette, Mr. Ney, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Portman, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. 
Regula, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. Turner of 
    Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Tony Hall Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 
West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 
``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24070]



[[Page 51303]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Notice of Maximum Amount of Assistance Under the Individuals and 
Households Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of the maximum amount for assistance under 
the Individuals and Households Program for emergencies and major 
disasters declared on or after October 1, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009, and applies to emergencies and 
major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berl D. Jones, Jr., Disaster 
Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-1000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 
U.S.C. 5174, prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum 
amounts for assistance provided under the Individuals and Households 
(IHP) Program. FEMA gives notice that the maximum amount of IHP 
financial assistance provided to an individual or household under 
section 408 of the Stafford Act with respect to any single emergency or 
major disaster is $29,900. The decrease in award amount as stated above 
is for any single emergency or major disaster declared on or after 
October 1, 2009. In addition, in accordance with 44 CFR 61.17(c), this 
adjustment includes the maximum amount of available coverage under any 
Group Flood Insurance Policy (GFIP) issued for those disasters.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on a decrease in the Consumer Price Index 
for All Urban Consumers of 1.5 percent for the 12-month period ended in 
August 2009. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of 
Labor released the information on September 16, 2009.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.048, Individuals and 
Households--Housing; 97.049 Individuals and Households--Disaster 
Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households--Other Needs.


W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-24070 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
§ 1208.70 Content of decision. The written decision shall include: ( a ) A summary of the facts presented;
( b ) The hearing official's findings, analysis and conclusions; and
( c ) The terms of any repayment schedule, if applicable.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREAS VASQUEZ-ZARCO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73356

Agency No. A077-168-268

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Andreas Vasquez-Zarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

FILED

APR 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73356

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial

evidence the BIA’s determination of continuous physical presence. Landin-Zavala

v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007). We review de novo questions

of law and due process claims. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.

2008). We deny the petition for review. 

 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Zarco

failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required for

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of ninety

days breaks continuous physical presence). Vasquez-Zarco fails to point to any

authority in support of his theory of constructive presence. Cf. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(1)(A) (Alien must be “physically present in the United States for a

continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such

application.”)

Vasquez-Zarco’s due process claim is not supported by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 308.106 Written testimony in lieu of oral hearing. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) At any time more than 15 days before the hearing is to commence, on the motion of any party or on the ALJ's own motion, the ALJ may order that the parties present part or all of their case-in-chief and, if ordered, their rebuttal, in the form of exhibits and written statements sworn to by the witness offering such statements as evidence, provided that if any party objects, the ALJ will not require such a format if that format would violate the objecting party's right under the Administrative Procedure Act, or other applicable law, or would otherwise unfairly prejudice that party.
( 2 ) Any such order will provide that each party must, upon request, have the same right of oral cross-examination (or redirect examination) as would exist had the witness testified orally rather than through a written statement. Such order must also provide that any party has a right to call any hostile witness or adverse party to testify orally.
( b ) *Scheduling of submission of written testimony.* ( 1 ) If written direct testimony and exhibits are ordered under paragraph (a) of this section, the ALJ will require that it be filed within the time period for commencement of the hearing, and the hearing will be deemed to have commenced on the day such testimony is due.
( 2 ) Absent good cause shown, written rebuttal, if any, must be submitted and the oral portion of the hearing begun within 30 days of the date set for filing written direct testimony.
( 3 ) The ALJ will direct, unless good cause requires otherwise, that— ( i ) All parties must simultaneously file any exhibits and written direct testimony required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
( ii ) All parties must simultaneously file any exhibits and written rebuttal required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Failure to comply with order to file written testimony.* ( 1 ) The failure of any party to comply with an order to file written testimony or exhibits at the time and in the matter required under this section will be deemed a waiver of that party's right to present any evidence, except testimony of a previously identified adverse party or hostile witness. Failure to file written testimony or exhibits is, however, not a waiver of that party's right of cross-examination or a waiver of the right to present rebuttal evidence that was not required to be submitted in written form.
( 2 ) Late filings of papers under this section may be allowed and accepted only upon good cause shown.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52460-52461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24505]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Availability of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Contract Management 
Agency (DCMA) Services Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Defense Contract Management Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States 
Code as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (NDAA 08) section 807, the DCMA Executive Director for 
Contracts, in coordination with the Office of the Director, Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Office of Strategic Sourcing (DPAP/
SS) will make available to the public the first inventory of activities 
performed pursuant to contracts for services. The inventory will be 
published to the DCMA Web site at the following location: http://www.dcma.mil/siteindex.cfm#I.

DATES: Inventory to be made publicly available within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or suggestions concerning the 
inventory to William Javoroski, Contracts Directorate (AQP), Defense 
Contract Management

[[Page 52461]]

Agency, 6350 Walker Lane, Room 505, Alexandria, VA 22310-3241.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Javoroski, (703) 428-0787 or 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7d0cecbcbcec6ca89cdc6d1c8d5c8d4cccee7c3c4cac689cacecb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e19070202070f0340040f18011c011d05072e0a0d030f40030702">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NDAA 08, section 807 amends section 2330a of 
title 10 United States Code to require annual inventories and reviews 
of activities performed on services contracts. The Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) (DUSD(AT)) 
transmitted the DCMA inventory to Congress on September 29, 2009.
    The DCMA Executive Director for Contracts submitted the DCMA Fiscal 
Year 2008 Services Contract Inventory to the Office of the DPAP/SS on 
August 28, 2009. Included with this inventory was a narrative that 
describes the methodology for data collection, the inventory data, and 
the plan for review of this inventory. The narrative and cover letters 
may be downloaded in electronic form (.pdf file) from the following 
location: http://www.dcma.mil/siteindex.cfm#I. The inventory does not 
include contract numbers, contractor identification or other 
proprietary or sensitive information as these data can be used to 
disclose a contractor's proprietary proposal information.

    Dated: October 2, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-24505 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### AUGUST TEMPLIN AND EMMA TEMPLIN, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. WILLIAM TRAUTMANN AND MARGARET TRAUTMANN, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Submitted January 16, 1940

Decided April 9, 1940.

Before Justices Trenchard, Case and Heher.

For the plaintiffs-appellants, *George H. Richenaker*and *William B. Morley.*

For the defendants-respondents, Chandless, *Weller & Kramer (Ralph W. Chandless).*

Peb Curiam.

The appeal is by plaintiffs from a judgment entered for the defendants in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the county of Bergen pursuant to a jury verdict. The action was for an alleged trespass wherein the defendants are said to have maliciously entered upon plaintiffs’ premises, destroyed a concrete wall with appurtenant drain pipes, despoiled the grass and earth, &c. Plaintiffs specify as the determinations of the District Court with which they are dissatisfied in point of law that the court struck so much of the state of demand and of plaintiffs’ testimony as dealt with the destruction of the wall and the cost of replacing same. The appeal comes up on a state of case, settled by the trial judge, which recites that when plaintiffs rested the “defendants moved to strike out all the testimony in relation to the alleged destruction of the wall for the reason that the testimony in the plaintiff’s case comprised an admission that the wall was constructed by the predecessor in title of the defendants and constituted an encroachment or nuisance on the property of *339the defendant and that the testimony of Joseph Spitzer was not proper in proving the construction costs by predecessor in title. The court granted the motion.” We find no record of the striking of any part of the state of demand.

The state of case discloses no testimony by Joseph Spitzer, nor does it show the production of him as a witness or otherwise. The witnesses for the plaintiffs, as certified to us, were Mr. and Mrs. Templin and Ered J. Thomson, Jr., a surveyor. The testimony given by one or more of these witnesses discloses that the wall in question was of concrete and was situated on the line between the premises of the plaintiffs and the premises of the defendants and that “to the side of such wall there were located certain drain pipes taking the water from the roof of plaintiffs’ house,” that this wall to the extent of twenty-one feet from the street line was torn down by the defendants, that plaintiffs repaired the pipe line with one day’s labor and at a cost of $6 for materials and that defendants did further damage by riding over the plaintiffs’ lawn. We find nothing in the plaintiffs’ ease which states that the wall was constructed by defendants’ predecessor in title or that it constituted a nuisance on the property of the defendant. The struck testimony, in our opinion, was relevant to the issue and should have gone to the jury as part of the case. The court action was objected to by the plaintiffs and exception was duly noted.

The judgment will be reversed, with costs.
# C_2005040EN.01001601.xml

| 17.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/16

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 28 May 2004 in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket

(Case E-3/04)

(2005/C 40/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 28 May 2004 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Bergen, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 June 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket, on the following question:

Is it compatible with the choice of law rules contained in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, that the flag State proceeds from the premise that the State of residence must have issued a form E 101 or a statement containing information equivalent to that found in form E 101, for the legislation of the State of residence to apply in accordance with Article 14b(4), and that in the absence of such documentation, the legislation of the flag State shall apply in accordance with Article 13(2)(c)?

---
# C_2020234EN.01000201.xml

| 16.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/2

---

EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 April 2020

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (1))

(2020/C 234/02)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

The base rates for Iceland and Norway as from 1 April, have been updated in light of exceptional circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.4.2020– | 2,88 | –0,56 | 1,28 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.4.2020–

2,88

–0,56

1,28

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the
annual report of Bell Microproducts Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William E. Meyer, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 28, 2009 |  | /s/ William E. Meyer   
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
§ 310.4 Times, places, and requirements for identification of individuals making requests. ( a ) Individuals may request access to records pertaining to themselves by submitting a written request as provided in § 310.3 of these regulations, or by appearing in person on weekdays, other than official holidays, at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Attn: FOIA/PA Group, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
( b ) Individuals appearing in person at the Corporation seeking access to or amendment of their records shall present two forms of reasonable identification, such as employment identification cards, driver's licenses, or other identification cards or documents typically used for identification purposes.
( c ) Except for records that must be publicly disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, where the Corporation determines it to be necessary for the individual's protection, a certification of a duly commissioned notary public, of any state or territory, attesting to the requesting individual's identity, or an unsworn declaration subscribed to as true under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, at the election of the individual, may be required before a written request seeking access to or amendment of a record will be honored. The Corporation may also require that individuals provide minimal identifying data such as full name, date and place of birth, or other personal information necessary to ensure proper identity before processing requests for records.
[40 FR 46274, Oct. 6, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 6796, Feb. 4, 1977; 61 FR 43419, Aug. 23, 1996; 67 FR 71071, Nov. 29, 2002; 76 FR 35966, June 21, 2011]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1638

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01638.

______________________

Decided: April 8, 2020

______________________

ROBERT STEPHAN RIGG, Vedder Price PC, Chicago, IL, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN K. BURKE,

SUDIP MITRA, DANIEL SHULMAN. 

 KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. 

 ______________________

Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-1638 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2020
2 SATCO PRODS., INC. v. LIGHTING SCI. GRP. CORP.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Satco Products, Inc. appeals the determination of the 

Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 14,

15, and 19–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 are not anticipated or, in combination with other prior art references, 

rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 7,670,021. The issues 

in this case are identical to the issues presented to us in 

Technical Consumer Products Inc. v. Lighting Science

Group Corp., No. 19-1361 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020), issued 

herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, and because claims 2 and 6 of the ’968 patent are the only remaining challenged claims in this case,1 we vacate the Board’s 

decision of no anticipation or obviousness of claims 2 and 6

and remand for consideration of the parties’ remaining arguments pertaining to those claims.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to Appellant.

1 Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 19–23 of the ’968 patent 

were determined to be unpatentable in Technical Consumer Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corporation, No. IPR2017-01287, 2018 WL 5733733 (P.T.A.B. 

Oct. 31, 2018), and Lighting Science Group Corp. did not 

appeal this determination.

Case: 19-1638 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2020
#### TOWN OF EUTAW V. DUNCAN.

(Decided June 17, 1913.)

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.

McKinley, McQueen, Hawkins & Snow, for appellant. Evins & Jack, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.