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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 142 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 142

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should have the 
  power to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 1999

 Mr. Stearns submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Congress should have the 
  power to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the United States.

Whereas from Valley Forge to Yugoslavia, in every battlefield where ever 
        American values have been attacked and American lives sacrificed, the 
        flag of the United States has been the shining, indomitable, eternal 
        spirit of American liberty in visual form;
Whereas to desecrate such a symbol is to desecrate the memory of the thousands 
        of Americans who have sacrificed their lives to keep that banner flying, 
        intact, and inviolate; and
Whereas since Americans have fought and died to defend the flag of the United 
        States, any act of desecration of the flag is profoundly offensive to 
        Americans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the reasoning of the opinion of the United States 
        Supreme Court leading to the decision in Texas v. Johnson, 491 
        U.S. 397 (1989), was flawed;
            (2) as a symbol of our Nation, the flag of the United 
        States is unique and deserves to be treated with respect of the 
        highest order; and
            (3) the Congress should have the power to prohibit the 
        desecration of the flag of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal L 250/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6415 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 250

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6415 July 2021

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Council Directive (EU) 2021/1159 of 13 July 2021 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards temporary exemptions on importations and on certain supplies, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Council Directive (EU) 2021/1159 of 13 July 2021 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards temporary exemptions on importations and on certain supplies, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

1

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1160 of 12 May 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the sprat box and the plaice box in the North Sea | 4 |

II   Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1160 of 12 May 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the sprat box and the plaice box in the North Sea

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is 

not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 

05-5024 

MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: October 4, 2005 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Marti Addams-More seeks review of an order of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. AddamsMore v. United States, No. 04-CV-1154 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 17, 2004) (“Dismissal Order”). 

We affirm. 

 Whether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Addams-More’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. See 

Wilson v. United States, 405 F.3d 1002, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2005). On July 12, 2004, 

Addams-More filed a complaint seeking relief on four counts: a qui tam claim arising 
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (2000); a RICO claim arising under 

18 U.S.C. § 1964 (2000); and two tort claims. As the trial court stated in the Dismissal 

Order, the “jurisdictional statutes governing the United States Court of Federal Claims

grant authority to the court only to issue judgments for money against the United States, 

provided that the claims are grounded in a contract or arise pursuant to a moneymandating statute, regulation, or provision of the Constitution.” Id. at 1 (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1491; United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397 (1976)). The Court of Federal 

Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(2); Wood v. United States, 961 F.2d 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Because 

Addams-More’s claims do not fall within the jurisdictional grant, the trial court properly

dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

On reconsideration, Addams-More raised three additional claims for relief, which 

the trial court considered. First, the court properly held that the Court of Federal Claims

does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim arising under an implied-in-law contract 

theory. See Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996). Second, it 

correctly found that Addams-More’s improper assertion of her qui tam claim as a takings

claim did not give rise to jurisdiction. Third, the court properly held that Addams-More’s

claim for copyright infringement, asserted against a private defendant, did not come 

within the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdictional grant. 

05-5024 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 252 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 252

   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding a resolution to the 
                            Kashmir dispute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 1998

 Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Torricelli) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding a resolution to the 
                            Kashmir dispute.

Whereas the detonation of nuclear explosive devices by India and Pakistan in May 
        of 1998 has underscored the need to reexamine relations between India 
        and Pakistan;
Whereas a spiraling nuclear arms race in South Asia would threaten the national 
        security of the United States, and international peace and security;
Whereas for more than half a century, Pakistan and India have had a dispute 
        involving the Jammu and Kashmir region and tensions remain high;
Whereas three times in the past 50 years, the two nations fought wars against 
        each other, two of these wars directly involving Jammu and Kashmir;
Whereas it is in the interest of United States security and world peace for 
        Pakistan and India to arrive at a peaceful and just settlement of the 
        dispute through talks between the two nations, which takes into account 
        the wishes of the affected population;
Whereas the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir continues to deteriorate 
        despite repeated efforts by international human rights groups;
Whereas a resolution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute would foster economic and 
        social development in the region;
Whereas the United States has a long and important history with both India and 
        Pakistan, and bears a responsibility as a world leader to help 
        facilitate a peaceful resolution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and
Whereas the United States and the United Nations can both play a critical role 
        in helping to resolve the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir and in 
        fostering better relations between Pakistan and India: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the United States should make a high priority the promotion of 
        peace and stability in South Asia, as well as normalization of relations 
        between India and Pakistan;
            (2) it is critical for the United States and the world community to 
        give a greater priority to resolving the long-standing dispute between 
        India and Pakistan over the Jammu and Kashmir region;
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RAYMOND’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE - 1

U.S. v. Terry T. Raymond, CR06-149RSM

Judge Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-149RSM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING 

) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

TERRY T. RAYMOND, ) AMEND JUDGMENT AND 

) SENTENCE

Defendant. )

)

_________________________________) 

This matter comes upon Defendant’s “Motion to Amend Judgment and Sentence,”

filed on March 4, 2008. Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, and the United States’

response in opposition, the sentencing transcript, and all other information available in

the record, the Court makes the following findings:

1. The modification to the Judgment and Sentence requested by Defendant is

not a correction of a clerical error, as authorized by Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 36.

2. The modification is not requested within seven days of oral pronouncement

of Judgment, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c).

3. There is no other federal rule of procedure conferring jurisdiction upon the

Court to amend the judgment as requested.

Case 2:06-cr-00149-RSM Document 340 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RAYMOND’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE - 2

U.S. v. Terry T. Raymond, CR06-149RSM

4. Therefore, this Court does not possess jurisdiction to modify the sentence

as requested.

5. After exhaustion of all available administrative remedies, Defendant

properly may raise these issues in the form of a habeas petition pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 2241, to be filed in the District where he is incarcerated.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to

Amend Judgment is denied.

Dated this _19_ day of _March_, 2008.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Sarah Y. Vogel 

SARAH Y. VOGEL

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Facsimile: (206) 553-4440

E-mail: Sarah.Vogel@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00149-RSM Document 340 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 2
From: grif2036@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dan Griffin

Elgin, SC 29045
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW 

AMENDMENT OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES - Page 1 of 3 

(C05-5797 KLS) 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN L. STROMBOM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

DENNIS E. JORDAN and JEANETTE 

A. JORDAN, husband and wife, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal 

corporation; TACOMA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, a subdivision of the 

City of Tacoma; MICHAEL GOETZ, 

individually and in his official capacity 

as a Tacoma Police Officer; GARY 

ROBERTS, individually and in his 

official capacity as a Tacoma Police 

Officer; and JOHN OTIS, individually 

and in his official capacity as a 

Tacoma Police Officer,

 Defendants. 

 

NO. C05-5797 KLS 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

ALLOW AMENDMENT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES 

STIPULATION

 COME NOW the parties, by and through their attorneys of record, and 

stipulate that defendants may file an amended answer to plaintiff’s First 

Case 3:05-cv-05797-KLS Document 23 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW 

AMENDMENT OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES - Page 2 of 3 

(C05-5797 KLS) 

Amended Complaint for Damages to assert the public duty doctrine as an 

affirmative defense. The defendants’ proposed Amended Answer is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1. 

ELIZABETH A. PAULI, City Attorney LAW OFFICES OF MONTE HESTER 

By: (original signed) By: (original signed)

 JEAN P. HOMAN BRETT A. PURTZER 

 WSBA #27084 WSBA #17283 

 Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiffs 

ORDER

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby grants leave 

for defendants to file an amended answer to plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages. 

 DATED this 27th day of March, 2007. 

A

Karen L. Strombom 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Presented by: 

ELIZABETH A. PAULI, City Attorney 

By: (original signed)

 JEAN P. HOMAN 

 WSB #27084 

Of Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:05-cv-05797-KLS Document 23 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW 

AMENDMENT OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES - Page 3 of 3 

(C05-5797 KLS) 

Approved as to Form: 

LAW OFFICES OF MONTE HESTER 

By: (original signed)

 BRETT A. PURTZER 

 WSBA #17283 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on _________, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following: Brett A. Purtzer. 

 ______________________________ 

 JEAN P. HOMAN, WSBA#27084 

 Attorney for Def. City of Tacoma 

 Tacoma City Attorney’s Office 

 747 Market Street, Suite 1120 

 Tacoma, WA 98402 

 (253) 591-5885 

 Fax: (253) 591-5755 

 jhoman@ci.tacoma.wa.us 

Case 3:05-cv-05797-KLS Document 23 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 286

Expressing the Sense of the Senate that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa

should be commended for their accomplishments.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 5 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Mr. MACK submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the Sense of the Senate that Mark McGwire

and Sammy Sosa should be commended for their accomplishments.

Whereas the recent conclusion of the regular baseball season

marked the end of an unprecedented home run race between the St. Louis Cardinals’ Mark McGwire and the

Chicago Cubs’ Sammy Sosa;

Whereas both broke Roger Maris’ home run record that many

though would stand untouched as indeed it has since

Maris passed the ‘‘Babe’’ by one home run when it hit

his 61st some 37 years ago;

Whereas ‘‘Mighty Mac’’ rounded out his record setting season

by sending two more over the fence in the team’s final

game to finish the year with 70 home runs while

‘‘Slammin’ Sammy’’ finished close behind with 66;
2

SRES 286 ATS

Whereas McGwire and Sosa brought to the game much more

than a new record for the books, even though they are

both great competitors, they showed the nation how competitors can show mutual respect and appreciation toward each other and to the game;

Whereas Mark McGwire is surely an ideal role model for tomorrow’s baseball stars as evidenced by his quiet dignity,

love of the game and respect for his competitors which

was clearly demonstrated the night he broke the home

run record—from his triumphant jog around the bases,

to hugging his son at home plate, to saluting Sammy

Sosa, and then finally spending a few moments in the

stands with the family of Roger Maris;

Whereas Sammy Sosa who stayed on McGwire’s heels

throughout the home run chase is also a role model who,

as a native from the Dominican Republic, rose from near

poverty to be one of the greatest home run hitters in the

history of the game, and is a hero in his home country

where he continues to share his success by funding special programs for its underprivileged children;

Whereas the nation witnessed this year a flashback to an earlier time when the fans felt a connection to the players

and the players gave their all for the fans;

Whereas baseball is a game of magic moments, like a perfect

game or a triple play—or watching the ball fly over the

fence for a home run, and, this year, McGwire and Sosa

brought the nation plenty of those magic moments; and

Whereas through class and character Mark McGwire and

Sammy Sosa are modern day heroes who brought out the

best in baseball and reminded us all why baseball is the

great American pastime: Now, therefore, be it
3

SRES 286 ATS

1 Resolved, That Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa are

2 to be commended for their record achievement, for reinvig3 orating the game of baseball, for their decency, and for

4 giving our children sports heroes worthy of that status.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary Corsi, Principal Financial Officer of Keyport Life Insurance Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Gary Corsi                     ___________

Gary Corsi

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2003

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ("Section 906"), and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135107 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135107 COA: 279092 Kent CC: 06-002814-FC KEVIN MICHAEL MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 5, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

l0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2008

Clerk