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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 590 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 590

     Designating the second Sunday in December 2006, as ``National 
Children's Memorial Day'' in conjunction with The Compassionate Friends 
                       Worldwide Candle Lighting.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

   Mr. Vitter (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            December 7, 2006

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

     Designating the second Sunday in December 2006, as ``National 
Children's Memorial Day'' in conjunction with The Compassionate Friends 
                       Worldwide Candle Lighting.

Whereas approximately 200,000 infants, children, teenagers, and young adults of 
        families living throughout the United States die each year from a myriad 
        of causes;
Whereas stillbirth, miscarriage, and the death of an infant, child, teenager, or 
        young adult are considered some of the greatest tragedies that a parent 
        or family could ever endure;
Whereas a supportive environment, empathy, and understanding are considered 
        critical factors in the healing process of a family that is coping with 
        and recovering from the loss of a loved one;
Whereas the mission of The Compassionate Friends is to assist families working 
        towards the positive resolution of grief following the death of a child 
        of any age and to provide information to help others be supportive; and
Whereas the work of local chapters of The Compassionate Friends provides a 
        caring environment in which bereaved parents, grandparents, and siblings 
        can work through their grief with the help of others: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the second Sunday in December 2006, as 
        ``National Children's Memorial Day'' in conjunction with The 
        Compassionate Friends Worldwide Candle Lighting;
            (2) supports the efforts of The Compassionate Friends to 
        assist and comfort families grieving the loss of a child; and
            (3) calls upon the people of the United States to observe 
        National Children's Memorial Day with appropriate ceremonies 
        and activities in remembrance of the many infants, children, 
        teenagers, and young adults of families in the United States 
        who have died.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017112EN.01000501.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — H&R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-95/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the evidence - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(3) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))

(2017/C 112/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: H&R ChemPharm GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann, lawyer and S. Thomas, Professor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dimsisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dimsisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DAVID R. PHILLIPS, Airman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

9 USCMA 323, 26 CMR 103

No. 11,021

Decided June 6, 1958

*Commander Charles Timblin,*USN, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel (fiarles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, and *Commander Craig McKee,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The escape from confinement established under Charge II also proved the accused’s unauthorized absence under Charge I. Accordingly, he cannot be punished separately for each. United States v Welch, 9 USCMA 255, 26 CMR 35.

The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to a board of review for reassessment of the sentence.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Judge Latimer dissents.
Case No. 5,476.

#### In re GLASER.

[2 N. B. R. 398 (Quarto, 129).] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1869.

•Contempt — Examination op Witnesses under Commission — Bankruptcy Practice.

On an application for attachment of witnesses .for contempt in not mnkinsr answers on examination under a commission, *held,*that attachment must be refused, for. the reason that no written interrogatories accompanied the commission, and no information furnished as to the ■ particular enquiry.

[In bankruptcy. In the matter of Samuel ■Glaser.]

Martin & Smith, for application.

Benedict & Boardman, opposed.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The commission issued by the district court for the southern district of Ohio, not being accompanied by any written interrogatories, and not furnishing any information as to what the en-quiry is, to which the examination of the witnesses named in it is to be directed, so that I can determine whether the questions which the witnesses have refused to answer, are or . are not pertinent to such enquiry; it is impossible for me to hold that the witnesses have refused to answer any pertinent or proper •question. The application for the attachment is, therefore, refused.
(Reap. Dec. 8816)

#### Poppet Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 740996.

(Decided May 29, 1957)

*3harretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain Poppet adhesive pens and refills, imported from England, is the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

It has been stipulated and agreed by the parties hereto that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was 3 shillings, 6 pence, less 33K per centum, less *3%*per centum, per pen, and 3 pence per refill. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S C., *671§ 1402 (c)), is the proper basis of value for the pens and refills before the court and that said value is 3 shillings, 6 pence, less 33 K per centum, less *3/*per centum, per pen, and 3 pence per refill.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
August 25, 1972

No. 72-35

#### James J. Logan, LCPL, U. S. Marine Corps v United States.

On consideration of the “Petition to United States Court of Military Appeals for Writ of Prohibition and Stay in Proceedings or Other Appropriate Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651,” filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that petitioner seeks relief from a ruling of the Military Judge of the General Court-Martial to which charges have been referred for trial1 denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for denial of the right to a speedy trial, and it further appearing that no such extraordinary circumstances as are contemplated by 28 USC § 1651 (a) are presented inasmuch as petitioner is not in confinement and, should the trial court convict him of any of the several offenses charged and impose a sentence to confinement, relief is available by application to the convening authority for deferment of said sentence pursuant to Article 57 (d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 857 (d), it is, by the Court, this 25th day of August 1972,

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.

1

 See Article 39 (a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 839(a).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARY VANDERMEULEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THOMAS L. LECLAIRE, Superior Court 

Judge (retired) County of Maricopa; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15273 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02062-JAT-DMF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Cary VanDerMeulen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of constitutional claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. 

Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15273 

512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s claims against 

officers Walter and Tucker related to VanDerMeulen’s arrest and the search and 

seizure of his property because success on these claims would necessarily imply 

the invalidity of his conviction, and VanDerMeulen failed to show that his 

conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in 

favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or 

sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate 

that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s remaining claims 

against officers Walter and Tucker, as well as his claims against Brinker, Shupe, 

and Judges LeClaire, McMurdie, Swann, and Orozco, because these defendants are

entitled to absolute immunity. See Paine v. City of Lompoc, 265 F.3d 975, 980 

(9th Cir. 2001) (“Witnesses, including police witnesses, are accorded absolute 

immunity from liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings.”); Fry v. 

Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 836-38 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that government 

attorneys are subject to absolute immunity in both civil trials and criminal 
3 19-15273 

proceedings); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(explaining judicial immunity doctrine).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
November 6, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PINNACLE PREMIER PROPERTIES, INC. AND PINNACLE REALTY 

ADVISORS, INC., Appellants

NO. 14-14-00194-CV V.

GHISLAIN BRETON, CATHERINE DENICOURT AND DAVID ANDREIS, 

Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the order granting temporary injunction in favor 

of appellees, Ghislain Breton, Catherine Denicourt and David Andreis, signed 

March 4, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find the trial court erred in granting the order. We therefore order the 

temporary injunction order of the court below REVERSED and RENDER

judgment denying appellees’ request for a temporary injunction. 

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Ghislain Breton, Catherine Denicourt and David Andreis.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit (31)-2**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Richard D. Rodekohr, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Transcontinental Gas Pipe LineCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 7, 2007        By:       /s/ Richard D. Rodekohr    Richard D. Rodekohr     Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Western Coastal and Marine Geology

##### U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 2959

# Multibeam Bathymetry and Selected Perspective Views Offshore San Diego, California

### *By* Peter Dartnell, William R. Normark, Neal W. Driscoll, Jeffrey M. Babcock, James V. Gardner, Rikk G. Kvitek, and Pat J. Iampietro

### 2007

This set of two posters consists of a map on one sheet and a set of seven perspective views on the other.  The ocean floor image was generated from multibeam-bathymetry data acquired by Federal and local agencies as well as academic institutions including:- U.S. Geological Survey mapped from the La Jolla Canyon south to the US-Mexico borderusing a Kongsberg Simrad multibeam echosounder system (MBES)(March - April 1998). Data and metadata available at  https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1221/ .   Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography mapped themajority of the La Jolla Fan Valley including the sea floor to the north and south of the valley usinga Seabeam 2100 MBES. Data available athttp://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/multibeam.html. Survey ID, AT07L09,Chief Scientists, Barrie Walden and Joseph Coburn (April 2002).California State University, Monterey Bay, mapped Scripps Canyon and the head of La JollaCanyon using a Reson 8101 MBES (October 2001). Data and metadataavailable at 
http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA.htm
. This work was funded by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
- California Coastal Conservancy, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG),California Department of Fish and Game, and Fugro Pelagos mapped the nearshore region outto about 35-40 m.   The sea floor within this image that has not been mapped with MBES is filled in withinterpreted bathymetry gridded from single-beam data available athttp://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/hydro.html.Depths are in meters below sea level, which is referenced to Mean Lower Low Water.
Download Sheet 1 of 2 as a 30" x 36" PDF file -- map view (SIM-2959_sheet1.pdf; 16.3 MB).  

Download Sheet 2 of 2 as a 30" x 30" PDF file -- perspective views (SIM-2959_sheet2.pdf; 18.2 MB).  

For questions about the content of this report, contact Pete Dartnell

Suggested citation and version history

Download a free copy of the current version of Adobe Reader.

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports main page | Western Scientific Investigations Maps || Geologic   Division | Western Coastal and Marine Geology   |

This report is also available in print from:

USGS Information Services, Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225telephone: 888 ASK-USGS; e-mail: infoservices@usgs.gov

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey	URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2007/2959/	Page Contact Information: Michael Diggles	Page Last Modified: November 28, 2007
No. 45168.

#### Protests 38672-K, of etc., John Alban & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
JOSEPH ST. FORT,

Appellant,

v.

SUGAR FARMS CO-OP and 

FLORIDA CRYSTALS 

CORPORATION,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0235

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 3, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Gregory J. Johnsen, Judge.

Date of Accident: July 14, 2015.

Jane-Robin Wender, BCS, Boca Raton, for Appellant.

Kevin R. Clarke of Law Office of Kevin R. Clarke, Jupiter, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 43071.

#### Protest 988517-G of Morney Sales Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

As there was no indication from any examination made by the customs officials that the merchandise in question was short landed and no competent evidence produced in proof thereof the protest was overruled.
# United States Court **of Appeals** 

**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40149

**Alfredo Lozano Mares,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant

**,**

versus

**Cameron C oun**  **ty Sheriff Omar Lucio, Individually and in his Official Capacity; Abel Gomez, Individual and in**  **his Official Capacity,**

Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern Dist rict of Texas

USDC No. 1:19

- CV

- 61

Before **Barksdale, Southwick,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**.**
**Per Curiam :**  *

**A FFIRMED** 

. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.6.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

December 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk Case: 20-40149 Document: 00515674937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4**
**- 7278** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MIKE AZIZ MERZOUG ,
Defendant

- Petitioner

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , a t Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior D istrict Judge. ( 8:10

- cr
- 00131

- HMH

- 2 )

Submitted : June 12 , 201 5 Decided: July 2, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by u n published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan A. Bartell, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATT ORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2

- PER CURIAM:
Mike Aziz Merzoug appeals the district court ’ s oral order
denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis

. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error

. See Bereano

v. United States , 706 F.3d 568, 575 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating

standard of review for denial of petition for writ of coram

nobis ). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argumen t
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
June 7, 1945

No. 50246.

#### Protest 115605-K of Gimbel Bros., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 53160.

#### Hiyama Shoten et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144632-K, etc. (Honolulu and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 43075.

#### Protests 951138-G, etc., of L. A. Salomon & Bro. et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54240.

#### Swiss Mills, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59321-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.