alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47862.

#### Protest 91324-K of Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Counsel for the,respective parties agreed that certain items consist of finished wearing apparel, embroidered, composed in chief value of silk, similar in all material respects to that involved in Abstract 47354. The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4725 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4725

To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal penalty 
      for unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 2024

   Mr. Cruz 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 establish a criminal penalty 
      for unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities.

    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 ``Guarding and Administering Trespass 
Enforcement, Controlling Restricted Areas, and Stopping High-risk 
Encroachment Recidivism and Sabotage Act'' or the ``GATE CRASHERS 
Act''.

SEC. 2. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1390. Unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities
    ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, within the jurisdiction of 
the United States, without authorization to go upon any property that--
            ``(1) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
        Defense; and
            ``(2) has been clearly marked as closed or restricted.
    ``(b) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall--
            ``(1) in the case of the first offense, be fined under this 
        title, imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both;
            ``(2) in the case of the second offense, be fined under 
        this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; and
            ``(3) in the case of the third or subsequent offense, be 
        fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
        both.''.
    (b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
67 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``1390. Unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4622 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4622

   To establish an Air Force Technical Training Center of Excellence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2024

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish an Air Force Technical Training Center of Excellence.

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

SECTION 1. AIR FORCE TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 903 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 9025. AIR FORCE TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.

    ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall operate 
a Technical Training Center of Excellence. The head of the Center shall 
be the designee of the Commander of Airmen Development Command.
    ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Center shall be to--
            ``(1) facilitate collaboration among all Air Force 
        technical training installations;
            ``(2) serve as a premier training location for all 
        maintainers throughout the military departments;
            ``(3) publish a set of responsibilities aimed at driving 
        excellence, innovation, and leadership across all technical 
        training specialties;
            ``(4) advocate for innovative improvements in curriculum, 
        facilities, and medial;
            ``(5) foster outreach with industry and academia;
            ``(6) identify and promulgate best practices, standards, 
        and benchmarks;
            ``(7) create a hub of excellence for the latest 
        advancements in aviation technology and training methodologies; 
        and
            ``(8) carry out such other responsibilities as the 
        Secretary determines appropriate.
    ``(c) Location.--The Secretary shall select a location for the 
Center that is an Air Force installation that provides technical 
training and maintenance proficiency.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 903 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 9024 the following new item:

``9025. Air Force Technical Training Center of Excellence.''.
                                 <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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON HART AND JUDY VEZEAU, on )

behalf of themselves and all ) CIV. S-04-2466 GEB DAD

others similarly situated and on )

behalf of the general public, )

) 

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER

)

v. )

) 

K MART MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; )

K MART HOLDING CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 20, 2005, Defendants filed an application for an

order shortening time which would accelerate the hearing date on their

unopposed ex parte request for an order to modify certain dates in the

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, filed February 17, 2005 (“Status

Order”). Defendants request their motion to modify the Status Order

be heard on May 2, 2005. 

Defendants argue in a conclusory manner that “in light of

the June 1, 2005, mediation . . . and given the deadlines by which the

parties must act in order to comply with the Scheduling Order, for

planning purposes, it will be immeasurably helpful for all the parties

Case 2:04-cv-02466-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/27/05 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

1 This is the third ex parte application I have received within

the last seven days.

[E]x parte applications contravene the structure

and spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of this court. Both

contemplate that noticed motions should be the

rule and not the exception. . . . Ex parte

applications throw the system out of whack. They

impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the

court . . . [by] demand[ing] priority

consideration. . . . In effect, they put the

applicant "ahead of the pack," [often] without

cause or justification. 

In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (Bankr. C.D.

Cal. 1989).

2

to know at the earliest opportunity whether the Court will grant the

Motion seeking the extension of time.” (Unopposed Application of Def.

KMart Corp. for an Order Shortening Time to Hear the Unopposed Mot. of

KMart Corp. to Modify Certain Dates in the Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Order at 2-3.) 

The request for an accelerated hearing date is denied.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02466-GEB-DAD Document 19 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0177 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0177

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community (COM(2006)0570 - C6-0332/2006 - 2006/0183(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 076 E , 27/03/2008 P. 0095 - 0095 *

P6_TA(2007)0177

Retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community (COM(2006)0570 — C6-0332/2006 — 2006/0183(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0570),

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71(1)(c) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0332/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0124/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
Before the First Division,

February 25, 1952

No. 56410.

protests 75005-K, etc. (New York).

#### Belgard & Frank, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
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

CARL McCEE FOUNTAIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2350 GEB DAD P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus has been fully briefed and is

submitted for decision. Petitioner now seeks permission to expand the record to include an

additional exhibit to his traverse. Petitioner states that his proposed Exhibit I is a true and

authentic copy of “the original document as submitted by the California Department of Finance.” 

The document presents annual population estimates by race or ethnicity in Yuba County between

1990 and 2000. Petitioner does not state whether this document was submitted to the state courts

and, if so, whether it was submitted during trial, on appeal, or in habeas proceedings.

Under the federal rules that govern § 2254 proceedings, the court may permit the

expansion of the record to include additional materials, such as exhibits, that relate to the

petition. Rule 7, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner claims that trial counsel provided

ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the jury pool on race discrimination grounds. 

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 09/15/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ opposition or statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s July 27,

2005 motion to expand the record shall be filed and served within thirty days after this order is

served; and

2. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days after

opposition is served.

DATED: September 15, 2005.

DAD:13

foun2350.motexp

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer, President, Principal Accounting Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and

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


November 8, 2010



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
     Chief  Financial  Officer,  and
     Principal Accounting Officer
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

DAVID GATHINGS, No. CIV-S-04-2210 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GEORGE J. GIURBINO, Warden, 

Respondent.

____________________________/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On April 12, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02210-MCE -KJN Document 7 Filed 05/25/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 12, 2005,

are adopted in full; and 

2. Petitioner is permitted 60 days to file an amended

petition containing only his exhausted claims and a motion to

stay this action and hold it in abeyance while he exhausts his

other claims. 

DATE: May 24, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02210-MCE -KJN Document 7 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 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 Although plaintiff references his desire to seek a continuance of his presently-scheduled 1

deposition, plaintiff directed that request to counsel for defendants. Plaintiff states he is asking the

court for appointment of counsel at the deposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On July 12, 2005, plaintiff has renewed his request for the appointment of counsel

for his next deposition. Plaintiff’s previous requests were filed on December 22, 2004 and 1

March 17, 2005 and each was denied. For the reasons stated in those orders, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 12, 2005 request is denied. 

DATED: July 20, 2005.

/001;kf; whit2313.31b

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 29 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 6658.

#### LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, LIMITED, vs. JULES DREYFOUS.

Syllabus.

A general power of attorney or proxy granted by all stock-holaers to an agent, authorizing him to attend all meetings of the corporation and vote their stock, does not empower him to directly order the sale of ’the corporation’s property without the formality of such meeting or other corporate action — particularly when the charter invests all corporate functions in the board of directors.

Appeal from the 'Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 111,4931 Honorable T. C. *~W.*Ellis, Judge.

Theo. Cotonio, for plaintiff and appellant.

A. D. Danziger, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHMUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Certain property in this city was sold .at public auction to Mr. Dreyfous, defendant, who thereafter refused to comply with the adjudication, thereupon the plaintiff, the Land Development Company of Louisiana, Ltd., terming itself a corporation .and claiming to be the 'owner of the' property and to have authorized said sale, instituted this suit for specific performance to compel defendant to comply with the adjudication.

The sole question argued and submitted to this Court is whether or not the auctioneer had authority “in writing from the seller, ’ ’ as required by E. C. C., 2606, to advertise and sell the property at public auction.

*352Opinion and decree, April 24th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, May 29th, 1916.

The only written authorization of the auctioneer produced is one executed by and in the individual name of Mr. Cotonio, who claims not only to be a stockholder of plaintiff corporation but also to .hold a procuration from each of the remaining stockholders empowering him to order a sale of the property on behalf of the alleged corporation.

These several procurations have been'put in evidence and, in so far as we have been able to ascertain, the only clause therein at all pertinent is that which authorizes him ‘ ‘ to attend all and any meetings of the stockholders of any * * * corporate body or bodies, wherein the said constituent may be interested, and vote in the name of constituent on all questions and cases that shall or may be submitted to such meeting.”

This is but an ordinary proxy, authorizing him to attend corporate meetings on behalf of his constituents and to vote their stock. But it does not empower him to dispense with meetings or other formal, corporate action, and to arrogate to himself all those functions, such a,s the power to sell property, which in the present instance are expressly vested in the board of directors by the charter itself. It may be competent for all the stockholders of a corporation to vest such authority in an agent — as to this no opinion need be expressed — but the instrument upon which plaintiff presently relies clearly does not do so.

The judgment of the trial Court was for defendant and it is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. .
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4417 

To amend the Small Business Act to require training on increasing contract 

awards to small business concerns owned and controlled by servicedisabled veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to require training on 

increasing contract awards to small business concerns 

owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, 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 ‘‘Service-Disabled Vet5 eran Opportunities in Small Business Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4417 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRAINING ON INCREASING CONTRACT AWARDS TO 

2 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND 

3 CONTROLLED BY SERVICE-DISABLED VET4 ERANS. 

5 Section 36 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

6 657f) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(j) TRAINING ON INCREASING CONTRACT AWARDS

8 TO SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CON9 TROLLED BY SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in con11 sultation with the Office of Veterans Business Devel12 opment, shall provide to covered employees at each 

13 Federal agency that has not met the goal established 

14 under section 15(g)(1)(A)(ii) training on how to in15 crease the number of contracts awarded to small 

16 business concerns owned and controlled by service17 disabled veterans. 

18 ‘‘(2) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 180 days 

19 after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 

20 Administrator, in consultation with the Office of 

21 Veterans Business Development, shall issue guidance 

22 and best practices on increasing the number of con23 tracts awarded to small businesses owned and con24 trolled by service-disabled veterans for Federal agen25 cies to which the goal established under section 

26 15(g)(1)(A)(ii) applies. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4417 IS

1 ‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

2 date of enactment of this subsection, and annually 

3 thereafter, the Administration shall submit to Con4 gress a report detailing, for the fiscal year covered 

5 by the report— 

6 ‘‘(A) a list of each Federal agency that 

7 failed to meet the goal established under section 

8 15(g)(1)(A)(ii); 

9 ‘‘(B) the number of trainings provided to 

10 each Federal agency described in paragraph 

11 (1); and 

12 ‘‘(C) an overview of the content included in 

13 the training sessions described in subparagraph 

14 (B).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 41783.

#### Protest 259507-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS KELLER and CRYSTAL

KELLER,

NO. CIV. S-04-1325 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendants' request to augment the

court's tentative pretrial order. The request is GRANTED and the

tentative pretrial order is AMENDED to include the point of law

contemplated in defendants' augmentation as well as the addition

of four percipient witnesses: Monica Witzig, Carol Dietrich,

Joshua Lee and Wanda Rueb. With that amendment, the pretrial order

is now FINAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 51 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

April 10, 1946

No. 51008.

#### Protests 118580-K, etc., of Anachemia, Ltd., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Hínchelos, J.

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