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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8930 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8930

 To require that each agency provide any communication in alternative 
                   accessible communication formats.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 2, 2024

 Mr. Sessions introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require that each agency provide any communication in alternative 
                   accessible communication formats.

    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 ``Accessibility Constituent 
Communication Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE ACCESSIBLE COMMUNICATION FORMATS.

    (a) In General.--Each agency, including agency employees or 
contractors, shall require that each distributed internal or public-
facing agency document communication shall be made available to Blind 
or Visually Impaired recipients in one or more of the following 
alternative accessible communication formats:
            (1) Tactile Braille.
            (2) Reflow Large Print.
            (3) Accessible Audio.
            (4) Equivalent accessible Digital Data format, such as 
        Accessible or Tagged PDF.
    (b) Distribution.--Each communication in an alternative accessible 
communication format shall be distributed via either United States Mail 
or secure electronic delivery systems in scheduled coordination with 
the communication in standard communication formats.
    (c) Enforcement.--An agency that complies with this section may not 
be held liable for a violation of subtitle A of title II for the 
distribution of such a communication with regard to any Blind or 
Visually Impaired recipient.
    (d) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) The term ``agency'' means a public entity (as such term 
        is defined in section 201 of the Americans with Disabilities 
        Act) that administers any retirement, welfare, health, 
        disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary 
        education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other 
        similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided 
        to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit 
        provided by appropriated funds of the United States.
            (2) The term ``communication'' means publicly available 
        information and materials.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007140EN.01002301.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/23

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2007 — EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission

(Case T-387/04) (1)

1

(Annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National plan for allocation of emission quotas for Germany - State aid - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 140/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C.-D. Ehlermann, M. Seyfarth, A. Gutermuth and M. Wissmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, M. Niejahr and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and U. Forsthoff, Agents, and D. Sellner and U. Karpenstein, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 2515/2 final of 7 July 2004 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, communicated by Germany in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the defendant;

| 3. | The intervener shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The intervener shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.

1

---
No. 56059.

protests 172170-K, etc. (New York).

#### Art News et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 35.1














SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION (“THE SERVICER”)








I, Chris Ballinger, certify that:





(a)   A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable sale and servicing agreement during the period from July 22, 2010 to December 31, 2010 has been made under my supervision.




(b)   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.








March 29, 2011








/S/ CHRIS BALLINGER


Chris Ballinger


Group Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer of


Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as Servicer of the Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-B Owner Trust


- 23 -
No. 54782.

#### Casablanca Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159197-K, etc. (New York).

*298Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007144EN.01000301.xml

| 29.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4599 — RWE Power/Carbon/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 144/04)

On 18 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4599. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4599. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2007140EN.01002002.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2007 — Citymo v Commission

(Case T-271/04) (1)

1

(Contractual liability - Arbitration clause - Lease contract - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability - Pre-contract negotiations - Plea of illegality - Legitimate expectation - Good faith - Abuse of rights - Material loss - Lost opportunity)

(2007/C 140/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Citymo SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Ommeslaghe, I. Heenen and P.-M. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, and D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Principally, an action in contractual liability based on an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay to the applicant company damages for its repudiation of a lease contract allegedly concluded between it and the European Community, represented by the Commission, and, in the alternative, an action in non-contractual liability seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission's decision to halt pre-contractual negotiations relating to conclusion of that lease contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | The Commission shall be ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 together with late payment interest thereon to run from the date of delivery of this judgment to the date of actual payment at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by 2 points, provided that it does not exceed a rate of 6 %; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission shall be ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 20 000 together with late payment interest thereon to run from the date of delivery of this judgment to the date of actual payment at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by 2 points, provided that it does not exceed a rate of 6 %;

| 2. | The remainder of the action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the action is dismissed;

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Rockelle
Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I, Gerard Stephan, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Rockelle Corp. hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
      2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      period ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rockelle
      Corp.

By:    /s/   Gerard Stephan
       ---------------------
       Gerard Stephan
       Chief Executive Officer
       Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 22, 2005
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 12, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00564

- CV

Keith Volk , Appellant

v.

Coryell County Sheriff ’ s Office , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE B YRNE, JUS TICES KEL LY AND SMITH

REMANDED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 4, 2021

. The parties

have announ ced they have resolved their dispute. Consistent with that resolution, we set aside

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand this cause to the trial court for

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The pa rties shall bear their

own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-vsADOLFO REVILLA-GOONALEZ

________________________________

Case No. 2:11-cr-299 (1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to

Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Count one (1)

of the Information. After examining the Defendant under oath

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine that

the defendant is competent and capable of entering an informed plea,

that the guilty plea is knowingly and voluntary made and that the

offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of such offense. 

 I therefore RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the plea of

guilty should be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged guilty

and sentenced accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should be

rejected and the defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty

plea. 

The Defendant remains in the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending

sentencing. 

Date: January 4, 2012 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and

Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and

Recommendation before the assigned United States District Judge. 28

U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B).

Case: 2:11-cr-00299-JLG Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 32 .1


WRITTEN STATEMENT


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned, Victor J. Coleman, Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Lammas, Chief Financial Officer of Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:


(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 , of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:March 2, 2015/s/ VICTOR J. COLEMANVictor J. ColemanChief Executive OfficerDate:March 2, 2015/s/ MARK T. LAMMASMark T. LammasChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**SECOND AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**AGREEMENT**

 

This Second Amendment to Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of November 8, 2004 (the “Effective Date”), amends that certainAgreement, dated as of August 18, 2003, as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement, dated September 23, 2004 (the “Original Agreement”), between Monitronics International, Inc. (the “Company”) and James R. Hull, individually(“Hull”). 

 

A. The parties entered into the OriginalAgreement pursuant to which, among other things, the Company granted Hull the Put Option exercisable at the Put Price. 

 

B. The parties desire to amend the Original Agreement to correct the typographical error in paragraph 3 regarding the date for the Company’s deliveryof the Put Price calculation to Hull. 

 

NOW THEREFORE, inconsideration of the premises and the agreements herein contained, and intending to be bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

 

 

1.01 The third sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Original Agreement shall be amended by replacing the reference to September 30, 2003 therein with“September 30, 2004” and replacing the reference to September 30, 2007 therein with “September 30, 2008.” 

 

 

2.01 Effect. Except as amended hereby, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

2.02 Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not specificallydefined herein shall have the same meanings given such terms in the Original Agreement unless the context clearly indicates or dictates a contrary meaning. 

 

2.03 Governing Law. This Amendment and all rights of the parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. 

 

2.04 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number ofcounterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and each of the parties hereto may execute this Amendment by signing any of such counterparts. 

 

[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands as of the date first above written.

 
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.By: /s/    JAMES R. HULL        
Name:
 **James R. Hull**
Title:
 **President and Chief Executive Officer**
 
/s/    JAMES R. HULL        **James R. Hull**
EXHIBIT 10(b)

                               CONSENT OF COUNSEL

      We hereby  consent of the reference to our firm included in the prospectus
filed as part of Registration Statement No. 33-87874.

     SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLP

New York, New York
April 18, 2001
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AlphaSmart, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2004, I, Ketan D. Kothari, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of AlphaSmart, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
AlphaSmart, Inc. for the periods presented therein.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                                     
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ketan D. Kothari                
|                   |  |     |  | Ketan D. Kothari                    
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.11

       SUMMARY OF ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN LEARNCOM, INC. AND R. REDWITZ & CO.

     We have engaged R. Redwitz & Co., an accounting and financial consulting
firm of which Robert R. Redwitz, our acting Chief Financial Officer and
director, is the Managing Partner, to provide us with certain accounting
services. Under the terms of the engagement, R. Redwitz & Co. is paid a retainer
of $5,000 per month and reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses.
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 of G2 Ventures, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2009 (the Report), I, Gust Kepler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Gust Kepler        
|Gust Kepler            
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 3, 2009       

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3694

___________

Ozell Lyons, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

City of Wynne, Arkansas; *

Lynn Rogers, Chief, *

Individually and in Official * Appeal from the United States

Capacity, Wynne Police * District Court for the

Department, Wynne, Arkansas, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants, *

*

Danny Newsome, Arresting *

Officer, Individually and in *

Official Capacity, Wynne *

Police Department, Wynne, *

Arkansas, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 21, 1997

 Filed: April 29, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Danny Newsome appeals from the district court’s denial of qualified 1

immunity to him in Ozell Lyons’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Lyons alleged

that Newsome, a police officer with the Wynne, 
-2-

Arkansas, police department, violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights by stopping and arresting him without probable cause. Having

reviewed the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district

court did not err in denying qualified immunity on the facts of this case.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered on the verdict. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.