alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52262.

protests 65016-K, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4150 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4150

To amend the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and Technical Corrections 
 Act to extend bankruptcy eligibility requirements for an additional 2-
                              year period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2024

Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
 Coons, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and Technical Corrections 
 Act to extend bankruptcy eligibility requirements for an additional 2-
                              year period.

    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 ``Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROVISIONS.

    Section 2(i)(1) of the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and 
Technical Corrections Act (Public Law 117-151; 136 Stat. 1300) is 
amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``2 
years'' and inserting ``4 years''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Doris P. JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC CONTROL BOARD; Anne P. Petera; Clater C. Mottinger; Clarence W. Roberts; C. Wilson Jones, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2356.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 27, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Gary L. Bengston, Gary L. Bengston, P.C., Danville, VA, for appellant. Martha M. Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Doris Jenkins appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against her on a claim filed under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12117 (Westl995). Having reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that Jenkins was not disabled under the ADA. The court properly relied on our decisions in *Williams v. Channel Master Satellite Sys., Inc.,*101 F.3d 346, 349 (4th Cir.1996), and *Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp.,*128 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir.1997), to hold that Jenkins’s lifting restriction is not a significant restriction on her ability to perform a major life activity. Jenkins’s efforts to distinguish those holdings are not convincing.

Nor does the record support Jenkins’s claim that her employer regarded her as having a disability under the ADA, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101(2)(C). *See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,*527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
No. 64104.

protests 117545-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Foreign Vintages, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*434Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams*& *Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1404

   To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded natural gas 
                                exports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded natural gas 
                                exports.

    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 ``Natural Gas Export Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. NATURAL GAS EXPORTS.

    (a) Finding.--Congress finds that expanding natural gas exports 
will lead to increased investment and development of domestic supplies 
of natural gas that will contribute to job growth and economic 
development.
    (b) Natural Gas Exports.--Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 
U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or any other nation not excluded by this 
        section'' after ``trade in natural gas'';
            (2) by striking ``(c) For purposes'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Expedited Application and Approval Process.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Exclusions.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Any nation subject to sanctions 
                or trade restrictions imposed by the United States is 
                excluded from expedited approval under paragraph (1).
                    ``(B) Designation by president or congress.--The 
                President or Congress may designate nations that may be 
                excluded from expedited approval under paragraph (1) 
                for reasons of national security.
            ``(3) Order not required.--No order is required under 
        subsection (a) to authorize the export or import of any natural 
        gas to or from Canada or Mexico.''.
                                 <all>
```
# sec5_balsh_2022

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2022-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10December 2021
# C_2017161EN.01000501.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

(Case C-335/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Recovery of waste management costs - Polluter-pays principle - Concept of ‘waste holders’ - Price charged for waste management - Special levy intended to finance capital investments))

(2017/C 161/06)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

Applicant:

Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of financing an urban waste management and disposal service, provides for a price calculated on the basis of an estimate of the volume of waste generated by users of that service, and not on the basis of the quantity of waste which they have actually produced and presented for collection, as well as for the payment by users, in their capacity as waste holders, of an additional levy intended to finance capital investments necessary for the processing of waste, including the recycling thereof. It is, however, incumbent on the referring court to verify, on the basis of the matters of fact and law placed before it, whether this results in the imposition on certain ‘holders’ of costs which are manifestly disproportionate to the volumes or nature of the waste that they are liable to produce. Accordingly, the national court may take into account, inter alia, criteria relating to the type of property that the users occupy, its surface area and use, the productive capacity of the ‘holders’, the volume of the containers provided to the users, and the frequency of collection, in so far as those parameters are liable to have a direct impact on the amount of the costs of waste management.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000585 20-NOV-2020 07:58 AM Dkt. 70 OP
#### Arnold A. LISS, We the People of the United States of America by Arnold A. Liss, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jacqueline BJORK, Sr., Tax Representative; E. Hernandez, Sr., Compliance Representative; J. Coffman, Branch Manager of the Franchise Tax Board; George Griffith, Sergeant, CHP and accompanying Officer; Bradley Towing Company; John Does, × through 4999, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-55970.

D.C. No. CV-00-00775-JNK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.1

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Arnold A. Liss appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his “complaint in trespass”. alleging a conspiracy by California state tax officials and others. We agree with the district *586court that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, deprived it of jurisdiction because California offers a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy” in its courts for tax appeals, and the gravamen of Liss’s complaint impermissibly seeks federal court intrusion into California’s taxation and collection process. *Jerron West, Inc. v. State of California State Board of Equalization,*129 F.3d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*525 U.S. 819, 119 S.Ct. 58, 142 L.Ed.2d 46 (1998).

Liss’s request for a default judgment is denied, and the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3035]



[[Page 8033]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
Future Plant Designs; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting 
on March 7, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, March 7, 2007--10 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business

    The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's work on technology 
neutral licensing framework (i.e., Working Draft NUREG-1860) with a 
focus on ensuring the value of such an approach versus the development 
of a licensing framework for specific designs, such as a high 
temperature gas cooled reactor or a liquid metal cooled reactor 
(reference the Commission's November 8, 2006, Staff Requirements 
Memorandum to Dr. Larkins). During the briefing, the Committee will 
also explore with the NRC staff the pros and cons of developing a 
licensing framework for specific designs. The Subcommittee will gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full 
Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
David C. Fischer (telephone 301-415-6889) between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: February 12, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-3035 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------x

:

IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION :

:

---------------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER

21 MC 97 (AKH)

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2002, I ordered the consolidation of all actions for

wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage or business loss currently pending or

hereinafter filed pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L.

No. 107-42 § 408(b)(3), 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (2002) (“the Act”), against any airline and/or airline

security company for purposes of pretrial proceedings;

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT, my order of July 24, 2002 is

modified such that all actions for wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage or

business loss currently pending or hereinafter filed pursuant to the Act against any defendant

(including defendants airlines and airline security companies), except for alleged hijackers or

terrorists, are consolidated for purposes of pretrial proceedings; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a master docket is hereby established: 

21 MC 97 (AKH) with the caption “In re September 11 Litigation”; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT counsel shall file originals of papers that

relate to all of the cases in the September 11 litigation under the master docket set forth above;

however, if papers deal with a specific case or cases, they shall be filed only under the individual

docket numbers. Papers filed under the master docket shall be considered part of the individual

case record where relevant. 
SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York

November 1, 2002

 //S// 

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN

United States District Judge
# sec6_rbalsh_2020

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-21	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BAugust 2020
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32415

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Breanna T. WILSON

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 6 July 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 5 months, 

and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 11 April 2016 by SpCM convened at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. 

For Appellant: Major Jarett Merk, USAF.

For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF.

Before MAYBERRY, HARDING, and C. BROWN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 

866(c). 
United States v. Wilson, No. ACM S32415

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ESKRIDGE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0865 LKK GGH P

vs.

A. CORREA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

In the request for appointment of counsel, plaintiff also seeks clarification

regarding the scheduling order. In particular, plaintiff requests that the court advise him

regarding what is expected of him regarding motions to compel, discovery, pretrial motions,

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 03/06/06 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

2

pretrial statements and other procedures.

The court cannot give plaintiff legal advice. Plaintiff should consult the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for information regarding the matters listed above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 21, 2006

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 3/6/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

eskr0865.31

 

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-8008

JOSEPH ORTIZ, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-359-2) Submitted: August 15, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Ortiz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable, and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortiz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

The undersigned herebycertifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of the Company onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatthe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periodcovered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By: /s/ Kenneth H. Traub               |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth H.  Traub                      |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date:  August 2, 2004

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION

:

:

v. :

:

:

JOHN J. BUCKSHAW : NO. 02-4450

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant John J.

Buckshaw’s Notice of Removal of the above-captioned action filed with this Court on July 30, 2002,

it appearsthatDefendant’sremoval concerns a summary citation from Philadelphia Municipal Court,

which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Furthermore, the docket does not reveal that the Notice of Removal was forwarded to the

United States Marshal’s Service to be served upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Neither

does the docket reveal that Mr. Buckshaw has served the document himself. 

It is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Buckshaw shall file, within thirty (30) days, but no later

than December 9, 2002, an Amended Notice of Removal in which he shall state in brief numbered

paragraphs the specific pending matter he wishes to remove to this Court and the legal ground relied

upon to do so. He shall also indicate when, and how, service was made upon the opposing party.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04450-LP Document 7 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 1