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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1127

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust and irrational 
                         criminal punishments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2017

   Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent unjust and irrational 
                         criminal punishments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Justice Safety Valve Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE BELOW A STATUTORY MINIMUM.

    Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g) Authority To Impose a Sentence Below a Statutory Minimum To 
Prevent an Unjust Sentence.--
            ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any provision of law 
        other than this subsection, the court may impose a sentence 
        below a statutory minimum if the court finds that it is 
        necessary to do so in order to avoid violating the requirements 
        of subsection (a).
            ``(2) Court to give parties notice.--Before imposing a 
        sentence under paragraph (1), the court shall give the parties 
        reasonable notice of the court's intent to do so and an 
        opportunity to respond.
            ``(3) Statement in writing of factors.--The court shall 
        state, in the written statement of reasons, the factors under 
        subsection (a) that require imposition of a sentence below the 
        statutory minimum.
            ``(4) Appeal rights not limited.--This subsection does not 
        limit any right to appeal that would otherwise exist in its 
        absence.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Patrick A. Kelleher, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Blue Ridge
   Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
   respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
   registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
       information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
       subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
       particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
       prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
       procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
       the period covered by this report based on such evaluation:

    c) disclosed in this quarterly report any significant changes in the
    registrant's internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected,
    or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
    controls over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
   most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
   of registrant's board of directors:

    a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
       controls over financial reporting which could adversely affect the
       registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
       data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
       weakness in internal controls over financial reporting.

    b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
        controls over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2003                    /s/ Patrick A. Kelleher
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                       21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WILSON : 02-3878

RETES : 02-3888

LUX, et al. : 02-3904

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3921

GUZZETTA, et al. : 02-3960

FAGAN, et al. : 02-3965

GREEN : 02-3989

NELSON, et al. : 02-4120

ASHTON, et al. : 02-4155

MCNALLY, et al : 02-4159

EVERETT, et al. : 02-4191

CASTELAZ, et al. : 02-4192

PERRY : 02-4249

NAPIER, et al. : 02-4256

POWERS, et al. : 02-4260

SANTOS, et al. : 02-4272

PRICE : 02-4299

SHULDA : 02-4307

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04159-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04159-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 54555.

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 140472-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400/ the court dismissed the protest.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30531

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR MANUEL GARCIA, also known as James Garcia, also known

as Alberto Molano Martinez, also known as Harold Ozorio,

also known as James Gonzales,

 Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-86-A

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

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). In this criminal proceeding, the defendant has filed

a notice of appeal from the district court's order overruling his

objections to the Government’s motion for issuance of a
No. 96-30531

-2-

preliminary order of forfeiture. Federal appellate courts have

jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291; (2) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes,

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); (3) orders that are deemed final due to

jurisprudential exception; or (4) orders that have been properly

certified as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), or that

have been properly certified for appeal by the district court, 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849

F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United

States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). A decision is

final when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Coopers &

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (internal quotations

and citation omitted). The district court’s order is not a final

or otherwise appealable order, and we can discern no basis for

appellate jurisdiction. Thus, Garcia’s motions to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal, for transcripts, and for extension of

time to file his brief are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 56 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 56 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 03-599-01

:

:

 v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-052

JOSE RIVAS :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2010, upon consideration of the Motion to Vacate,

Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Document No. 140), the

government’s response, and a review of the record, it is ORDERED that the motion is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of

appealability.

 /Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.
Exhibit 12.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Jacques Espinasse, Chief Financial Officer and Member of the Management Board of Vivendi S.A.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Vivendi S.A. (the “Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                /s/ Jacques Espinasse   Jacques Espinasse   Chief Financial Officer and Member of the Management Board
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARI & RICHARD HIMES : CIVIL ACTION

V. :

 

HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. : NO. 02-2774

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of January , 2004, upon

consideration of the Defendant’s Rule 50 Motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim for loss of

consortium, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 

JACOB P. HART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02774-BMS Document 23 Filed 01/14/2004 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX Resources Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        Date: March 13, 2008 /s/ Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.   Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.             Chief Executive Officer
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL MARITIME CORPORATION

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                   JURISDICTION OF
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                           INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
<S>                                          <C>
Ajax Limited Partnership                     Cayman Islands
Ajax II, L.P.                                Cayman Islands
Alta Ltd.                                    Cayman Islands
Boss, L.P.                                   Cayman Islands
Boss Ltd.                                    Cayman Islands
General Maritime I, L.P.                     Cayman Islands
General Maritime II, L.P.                    Cayman Islands
General Maritime Management Ltd.             Marshall Islands
Genmar Agamemnon Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
Genmar Ajax Corporation                      Marshall Islands
Genmar Ajax Ltd.                             Cayman Islands
Genmar Ajax II Corporation                   Marshall Islands
Genmar Alexandra Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
Genmar Boss Corporation                      Marshall Islands
Genmar Challenger Ltd.                       Liberia
Genmar Champion Ltd.                         Liberia
Genmar Constantine Ltd.                      Cayman Islands
Genmar Endurance Ltd.                        Liberia
Genmar Gabriel Ltd.                          Cayman Islands
Genmar Harriet Corporation                   Marshall Islands
Genmar Hector Ltd.                           Cayman Islands
Genmar Kentucky Ltd.                         Malta
Genmar Leonidas Ltd.                         Marshall Islands
Genmar Macedon Ltd.                          Cayman Islands
Genmar Malta Ltd.                            Marshall Islands
Genmar Maritime I Corporation                Marshall Islands
Genmar Maritime II Corporation               Marshall Islands
Genmar Minotaur Ltd.                         Cayman Islands
Genmar Nestor Ltd.                           Marshall Islands
Genmar Pacific Corporation                   Marshall Islands
Genmar Pericles Ltd.                         Cayman Islands
Genmar Spartiate Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
Genmar Spirit Ltd.                           Liberia
Genmar Star Ltd.                             Liberia
Genmar Trader (Liberia) Ltd.                 Liberia
Genmar Trader Ltd.                           Malta
Genmar Trust Ltd.                            Liberia
Genmar West Virginia Ltd.                    Malta
Genmar Zoe Ltd.                              Cayman Islands
GMC Administration Ltd.                      Cayman Islands
Harriet Ltd.                                 Cayman Islands
Harriet, L.P.                                Cayman Islands
Nord Ltd.                                    Cayman Islands
Pacific Tankship, L.P.                       Cayman Islands
Pacific Tankship Ltd.                        Cayman Islands
Prince Ltd.                                  Marshall Islands
Stavanger Sun Ltd                            Cayman Islands
United Overseas Tankers, Ltd.                Liberia
</Table>
No. 57905.

protest 219138-K (New York).

#### Rexon, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2017424EN.01000701.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-281/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 - List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region - Reduction of the size of a site - Scientific error - Validity))

(2017/C 424/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/72 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region is invalid, in so far as, by that decision, the Haringvliet site (NL 1000015) was placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARBARA and WILLIAM C. HICKMAN :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4166

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04166-RK Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017086EN.01000201.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/2

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

(Case C-27/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Scope - Manifest inadmissibility - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2017/C 086/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angel Marinkov

Applicant:

Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria), by decision of 28 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible in that it concerns Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/ЕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in that they concern Article 30, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Date:

To:

From:

TTL

CHES i 098

=—— Bar
( PAUL A. LARSEN.
WN Fxecutive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer
Treasurer

September 22, 1999

Ronald J. Piatek
Seventh District TT&L Manager

Paul A. Lanse 5
Chief Financial Officer

CoVest Banc

Subject: Comments on the Proposed Amendment to Treasury Tax &

Loan Rate of Interest

Issue #1: Stop the use of the Fed funds rate minus 25 basis points
and begin using a published overnight repurchase agreement rate.

On the current TT& L program, the TT&L depositories have no
control over the amount and timing of investments. Although the
nature of the investments are somewhat similar to a repurchase
agreement, the investments being collateralized, the impact of timing
and amount is great to a depository’s cash management. Depository is
aware of maximum investment it can take but the investments do not
come in one lump and the length of time the investments are left with
the institution is not definite. If the difference in rate between a
regular repurchase agreement and the proposed TT&L rate is 2 basis
points, it is more advantageous for an institution to enter into a
repurchase agreement with a dealer where the amount is defined for
any given day.

Issue #2: TT&L note balances for a guaranteed term.

This will be beneficial to a depository as cited in #1. TT&L
investments will be a vital aspect of cash management.

770 W. Dundee Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1598 * (847) 577-8100
749 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016-6471 * (847) 294-6500 * Fax: (847) 824-4402
2601 W. Schaumburg Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60194-3894 (847) 798-2800
Web: http://www.covestbanc.com