alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
SHAMIM AHMA D, P laintif f, v. Civil Action No. 09-1052 (JD B) JANET A. NAP OLIT ANO, in her off icial capacity as Secr etary of U.S . Depart m ent of H om eland S ecurit y, et al., Defendan ts.
ORDER Plaintiff Shamim Ahmad filed this petiti on for wr it of mandamus to compel def endants to adjudicate his Form I -485 Application to Adjust Status, in which he soug ht to adjust his s tatus from asy lee to per manent re sident. See Petition for Writ of Mandamus ¶ 1. He bring s two
cause s of ac tion based on ag ency action unre asonably

delayed under

the Administrative Procedur e Ac t and the F ifth Amendment. I d. ¶¶ 21- 39. Presently befor e the Court is defe ndant' s motion t o dismiss for mootness. De fenda nt moves to dismis s this action as moot beca use the re lief soug ht -- a de cision on plaintiff' s application -- has bee n rende red. See Def s.' Mem. at 5; see a lso Defs.' Fifth Status Report, Ex. A (U.S. Citiz enship and Immigration Services (" CI S") D ecision date d J uly 23, 2010). Where CI S has denie d an application for adjustment in status, a plaintiff' s reque st that the Court order CI S to proce ss the application must be dismissed as moot. See Bouguettay a v. Chertof f, 472 F . Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiff doe s not dispute that CI S has acte d on his application; indeed, he has f iled no response to defe ndant' s motion. The rec ord is clea r that the re lief soug ht by the petition -- adjudication of his application -- ha s been pr ovided, and that this ca se must be dismiss ed as moot.Acc ording ly , it is hereby

ORDERED that motion to di smiss i s GR ANTED and this action is DISMISSE D AS MOOT
. SO ORDERED
. /s/ J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Date: August 17, 2010
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY
BAGHDAD, IRAQ

PUBLIC NOTICE

INCREASED SENTENCES FOR PERSONS :
CONVICTED OF CRIMES AFTER RECEIVING AMNESTY

December 19, 2003

The Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) hereby advises all
citizens, residents of, and visitors to Iraq of the following.

Under Iraqi law, any person who was released from prison pursuant to Revolutionary
Command Council Resolution No. 225, dated October 20, 2002, and is thereafter
convicted of another crime may be sentenced using rules that allow stiffer punishments
based on aggravating circumstances. These rules permit judges to impose significantly
longer sentences than are otherwise authorized for the particular offense. For example, if
the penalty for a crime is imprisonment for a term of years. a judge may impose a
sentence that is greater than the maximum limit, provided that the increase in the
sentence does not exceed half the maximum limit (up to 25 years total)

This law allowing harsher punishments continues in force and judges should consider it
when sentencing persons who were granted amnesty under Resolution No. 225. Persons
who were released under that Resolution should be aware that they will be subject to the
severest sentences authorized by law if they commit further crimes.
\
ped
fei tay
hw) MA)
ply
L. Paul Bremer III
Administrator
1

 On page 9, the Report and Recommendation states that plaintiff’s “fourth

shoulder MRI revealed . . .” As plaintiff has objected to the characterization of that MRI

as involving the “shoulder,” I will amend that sentence to replace “shoulder” with

“proximal right humerus.” Also, on page 11, the Report and Recommendation quotes the

A.L.J. as concluding that plaintiff’s statements concerning his disabling symptoms

“exceed what the objective medical evidence and clinical finding could reasonable be

expected to produce.” The word “reasonable” would appear to be a typographical error;

the intended word, doubtless, was “reasonably.” 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HENRY VAUGHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 04-3981

O R D E R

March , 2006

Upon careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United

States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, and upon independent review of the Cross

Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.1

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Case 2:04-cv-03981-LP Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 2
3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

4. The decision of the Commissioner which denied disability insurance to

plaintiff is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

s/ Louis Pollak___

Louis H. Pollak, J.

Case 2:04-cv-03981-LP Document 14 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1496 

To amend the definition of Village Corporation in the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of Village Corporation in the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ANCSA Corporation 

5 Reinstatement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF DISSOLVED VILLAGE OR 

7 GROUP CORPORATIONS. 

8 Section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

9 (43 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by striking subsection (j) 

10 and inserting the following: 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1496 IS

1 ‘‘(j) VILLAGE CORPORATION.—The term ‘Village 

2 Corporation’— 

3 ‘‘(1) means an Alaska Native Village Corpora4 tion organized under the laws of the State of Alaska 

5 as a business for profit or nonprofit corporation to 

6 hold, invest, manage, or distribute lands, property, 

7 funds, and other rights and assets for and on behalf 

8 of a Native village in accordance with the terms of 

9 this Act; and 

10 ‘‘(2) shall include any successor corporation of 

11 a Village Corporation involuntarily dissolved under 

12 the laws of the State of Alaska if— 

13 ‘‘(A) the successor has received all or sub14 stantially all of the assets of the original Village 

15 Corporation; 

16 ‘‘(B) the shareholders of the successor are 

17 comprised of all shareholders of record or heirs 

18 of such shareholders at the time of such invol19 untary dissolution; and 

20 ‘‘(C) the successor corporation is organized 

21 under the laws of the State of Alaska;’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
No. 60013.

#### Gorman-Anderson Corp. and Sintered Carbide Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 188046-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horseshoe studs the same in all material respects as those *471the subject of *Gorman-Anderson Corp. and Sintered Carbide Corp.*v. *United States*(34 cust. Ct. 35, C. D. 1674), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 51616.

#### Protests 128796-K, etc., of Schmoll Fils Associated, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

HENRI GUERIN , Appellant,

v.

ISAAC GILMORE , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 265

[ March 31, 2021 ]

Appeal from the County Court, Broward County, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit ; Giuseppina Miranda

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. CACE 20

- 2571 and COCE 19

- 21109

.
Henri Guerin, Hollywood, pro se.

Isaac Gilmore, Hollywood, pro se.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

W ARNER , G ROSS and A RTAU , JJ., c oncur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
Companys financial condition and results of operations.
 /s/ ROBERT A. LEFTON
    
    /s/ R. DIRK ALLISONRobert A. Lefton
    
    R. Dirk AllisonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1447 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1447

 To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2017

Mr. Carper (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Whitehouse) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

    Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16137(a)) is amended by striking ``2016'' and inserting ``2022''.

SEC. 3. RECOGNIZING DIFFERENCES IN DIESEL VEHICLE, ENGINE, EQUIPMENT, 
              AND FLEET USE.

    (a) National Grant, Rebate, and Loan Programs.--Section 
792(c)(4)(D) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16132(c)(4)(D)) is amended by inserting ``, recognizing differences in 
typical vehicle, engine, equipment, and fleet use throughout the United 
States'' before the semicolon.
    (b) State Grant, Rebate, and Loan Programs.--Section 793(b)(1) of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) the recognition, for purposes of implementing 
                this section, of differences in typical vehicle, 
                engine, equipment, and fleet use throughout the United 
                States, including expected useful life; and''.

SEC. 4. REALLOCATION OF UNUSED STATE FUNDS.

    Section 793(c)(2)(C) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16133(c)(2)(C)) is amended beginning in the matter preceding clause (i) 
by striking ``to each remaining'' and all that follows through ``this 
paragraph'' in clause (ii) and inserting ``to carry out section 792''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1947

No. 51927.

#### S. Barotz & Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6590-R (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The question of the proper dutiable value of the merchandise was litigated before a single judge and a division of the court sitting in reappraisement proceedings. Upon the entire record it was held that the importer acted in good faith; that it presented all the pertinent facts to the Government officials; and that there was no attempt to defraud the Government. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene B. Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE B. DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene B. Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 3, 2004
_______________________

* Marlene B. Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# C_2017256EN.01002401.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — GP Joule PV v EUIPO — Green Power Technologies (GPTech)

(Case T-235/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative trade mark GPTech - Earlier EU word marks GP JOULE - Failure to produce before the Opposition Division proof of entitlement to file a notice of opposition - Proof first produced before the Board of Appeal - Failure to take into account - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules 17(4), 19(2), 20(1) and 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 256/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG (Reußenköge, Germany) (represented by: F. Döring, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Green Power Technologies, SL (Bollullos de la Mitación, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 (Case R 848/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between GP Joule PV and Green Power Technologies.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders GP Joule PV GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc. (the "Corporation") for the
quarter ended May 1, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President
and Chief Executive Officer, certifies 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
Corporation.

/s/ Brian T. Marley
---------------------------
Brian T. Marley
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
June 10, 2004
# C_2016270EN.01003101.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — A Oy

(Case C-292/16)

(2016/C 270/35)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A Oy

Applicant:

Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Other parties

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 49 TFEU preclude Finnish legislation under which, where a Finnish company by way of a transfer of business disposes of assets of a permanent establishment situated in another EU Member State to a company established in that State in return for new shares, the transfer of the assets is taxed immediately in the year of transfer, but in a corresponding national situation is not taxed until the time of realisation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude Finnish legislation under which, where a Finnish company by way of a transfer of business disposes of assets of a permanent establishment situated in another EU Member State to a company established in that State in return for new shares, the transfer of the assets is taxed immediately in the year of transfer, but in a corresponding national situation is not taxed until the time of realisation?

| 2. | Is there indirect or direct discrimination if Finland levies tax immediately in the year of the transfer of business before the income has been realised, and in a domestic situation not until the time of realisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there indirect or direct discrimination if Finland levies tax immediately in the year of the transfer of business before the income has been realised, and in a domestic situation not until the time of realisation?

| 3. | If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, may the restriction of the right of establishment be justified on grounds such as an overriding reason of the public interest or the preservation of the national power of taxation? Does the prohibited restriction comply with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, may the restriction of the right of establishment be justified on grounds such as an overriding reason of the public interest or the preservation of the national power of taxation? Does the prohibited restriction comply with the principle of proportionality?

---
Exhibit 24

                        POWER OF ATTORNEY

                 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
      Annual Report on Form lO-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                        December 31, 1996


     The undersigned directors of INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY,
an Indiana corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and
appoint E. LINN DRAPER, JR., G. P. MALONEY and P. J. DeMARIA, and
each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for
them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual Report of the Company on Form lO-K, pursuant to Section
13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1996, and any and all amendments thereto, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing
required or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents
this 26th day of February, 1997.

/s/ C. R. Boyle, III               /s/ James J. Markowsky
------------------------------     -------------------------------
C. R. Boyle, III                   James J. Markowsky

/s/ G. A. Clark                    /s/ D. B. Synowiec
------------------------------     -------------------------------
G. A. Clark                        D. B. Synowiec

/s/ P. J. DeMaria                  /s/ D. M. Trenary
------------------------------     -------------------------------
P. J. DeMaria                      D. M. Trenary

/s/ W. N. D'Onofrio                /s/ J. H. Vipperman
------------------------------     -------------------------------
W. N. D'Onofrio                    J. H. Vipperman

/s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.            /s/ W. E. Walters
------------------------------     -------------------------------
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                W. E. Walters

/s/ Wm. J. Lhota                   /s/ E. H. Wittkamper
------------------------------     -------------------------------
Wm. J. Lhota                       E. H. Wittkamper

/s/ G. P. Maloney
------------------------------
G. P. Maloney
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:05-cv-00766-TON Document 9 Filed 05/13/05 Page 22 of 22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KHALIL HAMMOND,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT MICHAEL KRAK, D.M.D., 

SUPERINTENDENT LOUIS FOLINO, 

SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL, DORINA 

VARNER AND JOHN OR JANE DOES #1-

3,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 211 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Before the Third Division,

December 11, 1959

No. 63596.

protests 324919-K, etc. (New York).

#### Perry Bayliss Wiley (U.S.A.), Inc., and Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of automobile tires similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 327, C.D. 1882), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.