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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 578 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 578

Recognizing that the occurrence of prostate cancer in African American 
  men has reached epidemic proportions and urging Federal agencies to 
    address that health crisis by designating funds for education, 
   awareness outreach, and research specifically focused on how that 
                 disease affects African American men.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2006

Mr. Kerry submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing that the occurrence of prostate cancer in African American 
  men has reached epidemic proportions and urging Federal agencies to 
    address that health crisis by designating funds for education, 
   awareness outreach, and research specifically focused on how that 
                 disease affects African American men.

Whereas the incidence of prostate cancer in African American men is 60 percent 
        higher than any other racial or ethnic group in the United States;
Whereas African American men have the highest mortality rate of any ethnic and 
        racial group in the United States, dying at a rate that is 140 percent 
        higher than other ethnic and racial groups;
Whereas that rate of mortality represents the largest disparity of mortality 
        rates in any of the major cancers;
Whereas prostate cancer can be cured with early detection and the proper 
        treatment, regardless of the ethnic or racial group of the cancer 
        patient;
Whereas African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed earlier in age and at 
        a later stage of cancer progression than for all other ethnic and racial 
        groups, thereby leading to lower cure rates and lower chances of 
        survival; and
Whereas, according to a recent paper published in the Proceedings of the 
        National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the Dana Farber Cancer 
        Institute and Harvard Medical School have discovered a variant of a 
        small segment of the human genome that accounts for the higher risk of 
        prostate cancer in African American men: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes that prostate cancer has created a health 
        crisis for African American men; and
            (2) declares the critical importance of the designation of 
        increased funding for--
                    (A) research to address and attempt to end the 
                health crisis created by prostate cancer; and
                    (B) efforts relating to education, awareness, and 
                early detection at the grassroots levels to end that 
                health crisis.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017014EN.01000901.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Fernand Ullens de Schooten v État belge

(Case C-268/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental freedoms - Articles 49, 56 and 63 TFEU - Situation confined in all respects within a single Member State - Non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law for which the national legislature and courts are to be held responsible))

(2017/C 014/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fernand Ullens de Schooten

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the system of non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by a breach of that law does not apply in the case of damage allegedly caused to an individual as a result of an alleged breach of a fundamental freedom laid down in Article 49, 56 or 63 TFEU by national legislation that is applicable without distinction to the State’s own nationals and those of other Member States, where, in a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, there is no link between the subject or circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings and those articles.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

---
# C_2016027EN.01002701.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/27

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office

(Case C-625/15 P)

(2016/C 027/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgement of the General Court of 10 September 2015 in joined cases T-91/14 and T-92/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgement of the General Court of 10 September 2015 in joined cases T-91/14 and T-92/14;

| — | order the CPVO and the Interveners to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the CPVO and the Interveners to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed a legal error in the application of Article 7 of Regulation No. 2100/94 (1) on Community Plant Variety Rights (hereinafter: CPVR) as well as of Articles 22 and 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1239/95 (2) of 31 May 1995.

1

2

The General Court wrongly assessed the competence of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the inclusion of additional characteristics in the examination process of a variety to be granted Community plant variety protection.

The General Court wrongly assessed the legal nature of technical protocols and guidelines to be applied in the technical examination of an applied for Community plant variety right, resulting in a wrong assessment of the time frame in which the President of the Community Plant Variety Office may decide that a new characteristic for determination of distinctness of the new variety may be taken into account.

The General Court erred in assessing the consequence of the application of the principles of legal certainty, the objectivity of the Community Plant Variety Office and equal treatment in relation to the decisions of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the examination of a new variety.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights

1

OJ L 227, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office

2

OJ L 121, p. 37.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         (37003)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   142854
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     513198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                629089
<PP&E>                                         1283172
<DEPRECIATION>                                  102925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2082307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2939958
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7545
<COMMON>                                        122234
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3019452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2082307
<SALES>                                        2751483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2751483
<CGS>                                          2622103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2622103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                268164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              139947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (138784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (138784)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (138784)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (138784)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016364EN.01004101.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — HG v Commission

(Case F-149/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Officials posted to a non-Member State - Lodging provided by the administration - Obligation to reside there - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Deferment of advancement to a higher step - Compensation for the harm - Article 22 of the Staff Regulations))

(2016/C 364/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step and obliging the applicant to pay compensation in respect of harm allegedly incurred by the European Union, and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm and the reputational damage allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HG to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HG to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 46.

---
#### William L. Bane & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7393.

Invoices dated London, England, June 7, 1946, etc.

Certified June 13, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 24, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 706453, etc.

(Decided October 1, 1947)

*Benjamin A. Leveti*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on the annexed schedule which is marked “A” and made part of this decision, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 2473

- 19

U.S. BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE

F/B/O HOLDERS OF

STRUCTURED ASSET

MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC., BEAR STEARNS ALT

- A TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS

THROUGH CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2006

- 3,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

DORIS D. ODOEMENE AND EMMANUEL C. ODOEMENE,

wife and h usband,

Defendants

- Appellants

,

and

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Defendant.

____________________________

Submitted February 9, 2021

– Decided June 17, 2021

Before Judges Fisher and Gummer.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 2473

- 19 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F

016656

- 1 8.

Doris D. Odoemene and Emmanuel C. Odoemene, appellants pro se.

Milstea d and Associates, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Roger Fay, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this foreclosure case

, defendants appeal (1) a n order granting plaintiff's

motion for sum mary judgment

, strik ing defendants' answer
, and denying

defendants' cross

- motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) final judgment

.

Defendants argu e :

I. The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion in not dismissing the Complaint when Plaintiff did not show

it had physical possession of the Note at the time of filing the Complaint.

II. The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by avoiding to ma ke [sic] a decision regarding a pre

- filing requirement when there is a non [

- ] compliant and

deficient NOI.

III. The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion in concluding Plaintiff has established that Defendants

defaulted on the Note.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a

written opinion, R. 2:11

- 3(e)( 1 ) (E)

.3 A

- 2473

- 19

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES
13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Alan S. Knitowski, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Phunware Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|Date: April 30, 2019 | By: | /s/ Alan S. Knitowski                                                                  
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Alan S. Knitowski
        Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Gordon R. Arnold,  certify,  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the quarterly
report of Sierra  Monitor  Corporation on form 10-QSB for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such
quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material  respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Sierra Monitor Corporation.

Date:    May 12, 2004                  By:  /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gordon R. Arnold
                                            Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  typed from  within the  electronic  version of this  written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Sierra  Monitor  Corporation  and
will be retained by Sierra Monitor  Corporation  and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                                                        16 of 16
#### Dexter, *versus*Field *and trustees.*

If mortgagees of personal property', when summoned as trustees to the mortgager, would rely upon a foreclosure of the mortgage, they must, in the disclosure, show what were the conditions of the mortgage, and state that a foreclosure had occurred.

Howard, J.

orally.—This case is upon exceptions, which relate only to the liability of the trustees.

The disclosure shows a mortgage of goods made to the trustees by the defendant in Sept. 1848. The trustee writ was served on them in Nov. 1848, more than sixty days after the mortgage was given. On an examination made after Nov. 1848, there was in the trustees’ hands a balance of forty or fifty dollars, the avails of the mortgaged property, over the amount for which the mortgage was collateral. The counsel for the trustees contend the mortgage had been foreclosed before the service of the trustee writ. But the disclosure itself does not show what were the conditions of the mortgage, nor does it state that a foreclosure had been had, or any measures taken to effect one. They have not discharged themselves.
# C_2017121EN.01000401.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz — Germany) — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-496/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment - Frontier worker subject to income tax in the Member State of residence - Benefit paid by the Member State of employment in the event of the employer’s insolvency - Detailed rules for the calculation of the insolvency benefit - Notional taking into account of the income tax of the Member State of employment - Insolvency benefit lower than the previous net remuneration - Bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation))

(2017/C 121/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alphonse Eschenbrenner

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFUE and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the amount of the insolvency benefit awarded by a Member State to a frontier worker who is not subject to income tax in that State, and for whom that benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, from being determined by deducting income tax, as it applies in that State, from the remuneration used to calculate that benefit, with the consequence that that frontier worker, unlike persons working and residing in that State, does not receive a benefit corresponding to his previous net remuneration. The fact that that worker does not have a claim against his employer corresponding to the part of his previous gross salary which he has not received because of that deduction has no effect in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

1

---
1

 Ireland filed an untimely application for discretionary appeal challenging the

trial court’s order, which we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Case No.

A14D0424, dismissed on July 15, 2014. 

Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2228. LONNY IRELAND v. THE STATE.

In 2004, Lonny Ireland pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, two

counts of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated

sodomy, and possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a felony.

Ireland filed a motion for resentencing in March 2014, which the trial court denied

on April 4, 2014.1 Ireland filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order,

and the trial court denied that motion on May 6, 2014. Ireland filed his notice of

appeal on June 2, 2014. We lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial

court’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal

is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Couch v. United

Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). The denial of

a motion for reconsideration is not directly appealable, and the filing of such a motion

does not extend the time for filing an appeal. See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510,

511 (536 SE2d 187) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271 (326 SE2d 5)

(1985). Ireland file his notice of appeal 59 days after the entry of the trial court’s

order denying his motion for resentencing. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to

consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

September 24, 2014
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/24/2014
Case No. 13,943.

#### THOMPSON v. BERRY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 45.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1801.

Assault and Battery — Defendant’s Land-Pushing Off.

A man cannot lawfully push another off from . his land without first requesting him to go off.

Assault and battery. Plea, molliter manus imposuit.

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

prayed THE COURT to instruct the jury that if they should be. of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant had legal possession of the 'place where, &c., he had a right to remove the plaintiff by pushing him off.

THE COURT

refused to give the instruction as prayed; being of opinion that a previous request to the plaintiff to go off was necessary.

KILTY, Chief Judge, absent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification ofthe Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Glenn F. Tilton,certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 of UnitedAir Lines, Inc. (the “Report”):

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of United Air Lines, Inc.
| /s/ Glenn F. Tilton     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Glenn F. Tilton         |   |
| Chairman, President and |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |

 

----