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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 325 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 325

 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2005

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

    Resolved,  That the Committee on Rules and Administration shall 
prepare a revised edition of the Senate Election Law Guidebook, Senate 
Document 106-14 , and that such document shall be printed as a Senate 
document.
    Sec. 2. There shall be printed, beyond the usual number, 500 
additional copies of the document specified in the first section for 
the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Filed 12/5/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 227

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Marcus Benjamin Peltier, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20160148

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Thomas J. Glass, 418 E. Rosser Ave., Ste. 102, Bismarck, ND 58501, plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Ryan A. Keefe, Burleigh County Courthouse, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck,  ND 58501; submitted on brief.

State v. Peltier

No. 20160148

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Marcus Peltier appeals a criminal judgment after a jury trial.  He argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial.  Peltier claims the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by using the word “felony” in its closing arguments.  The State argues it was not prejudicial to use the word “felony” in its closing arguments, because Peltier was charged with preventing arrest or discharge of other duties, and “felony” is an element of that crime.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peltier’s motion for a mistrial.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
# C_2017022EN.01002802.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Azur Space Solar Power v EUIPO (Representation of black lines and bricks)

(Case T-614/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing black lines and bricks - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus and S. Stöcker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2015 (Case R 3233/2014-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing black lines and bricks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Azur Space Solar Power GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

1

---
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 1713

- 19

CHRISTINE SAVAGE and
KYHEEM DAVIS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP,

NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES M. HUNT, JR., and

MICHAEL J. BASCOM,

Defendants

- Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted September 23, 2021

– Decided November 4, 2021

Before Judges Alvarez, Haas, and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L

- 0 685

- 18.

Law Office of Donald F. Burke, attorneys for appellants (Donald F. Burke and Donald F. Burke, Jr., on the briefs). 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

- 1713

- 19 Grace, Marmero & Associates, LLP, attorneys for respondents Neptune Township and Neptune Township Police Department ( Michael R. Burns, on the brief).

Schenck

, Price

, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for

resp ondents James R. Hunt, Jr., and Michael J. Bascom

, join in the brief of respondents Neptune Township and Neptune Township Police Department.

PER CURIAM

The parties to the appeal have settled the issues between them. In

accordance with the stipulation s they have filed, the appeal is dismissed with

prejudice

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CASH
FLOWS AND CAPITALIZATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. </LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      305,254
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     56,279
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          95,612
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        30,479
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,624
<COMMON>                                       109,305
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       22,462
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             39,503
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 171,270
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           152,364
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              42,057
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    7,828
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 114,105
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  487,624
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      147,448
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,789
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     120,705
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     129,494
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         17,954
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,212
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  20,166
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,052
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,114
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   16,114
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,377
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        2,764
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          39,859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016270EN.01001403.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/14

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2015 in Case T-89/11: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v EUIPO

(Case C-479/15 P)

(2016/C 270/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwalt, M.C. Maier, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 14 April 2016 the Court (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
# C_2015381EN.01001601.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 August 2015 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso

(Case C-449/15)

(2015/C 381/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Portoscuso

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?

---
Before the Third Division,

June 10, 1958

No. 62066.

#### *P &*P Industries *v.*United States,

protest 307364-K *(New*York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

At the trial, counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not directed against a decision of the collector and, therefore, did not state a cause of action under the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514); that if the protest stated a claim, it was one for reappraisement of the value of the merchandise, which could not be litigated in a protest proceeding; and that even if the paper filed by the plaintiff could be considered an appeal to reappraisement, it was untimely. The court held that it was clear that the plaintiff had mistaken its remedy; that if, in its opinion, the appraiser had erred in valuing the merchandise, its remedy was not by protest, but rather by appeal for reappraisement under section 501 (19 U. S. C. § 1501) which, to be timely, must be taken within 30 days after written notice of appraisement; and that, since this was not done in the present case, the appraisal became final and binding upon all parties. *Ludlow Manufacturing & Sales Co.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 17, C. D. 1150) and cases cited therein followed. On the record presented, Government’s motion to dismiss the protest was granted.
NOS. 12-11-00122-CR

 12-11-00123-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

AARON LAMON MUSE, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Aaron Lamon Muse filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions he has filed. He asserts that the trial court has a 

legal duty to rule on these motions and urges that mandamus is appropriate to require the trial 

court to perform its duty. We deny the petition.

To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, a relator must 

establish that the trial court failed to perform a duty that is purely ministerial under the facts and 

the law, and that the relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court 

of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). 

A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 

S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). However, Relator admits that counsel has been 

appointed to represent him in the criminal proceedings pending in the trial court. A trial court 

has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding 

in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See id. Consequently, the trial court has not 

violated a legal duty by failing to rule on Relator’s pro se motions. Because Relator has not 

shown that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on Relator’s pending motions, he cannot 

show that mandamus is appropriate. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is 

denied.
2

SAM GRIFFITH 

 Justice

Opinion delivered May 11, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 164 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.164
                                                 Agreed to June 14, 2007

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on July 17, 
2007, for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. 
Norman E. Borlaug. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be 
carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 
Capitol may prescribe.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
|  EXHIBIT 32.1                                     |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|  Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries  |

| 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Corporation. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ PATRICK E. GOTTSCHALK                                  |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Patrick E. GottschalkPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| Date: November 3, 2010                                     |   |   |

----
Exhibit 32



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 quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form 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.



Date:

October 29, 2007

By:    /s/ Gordon R. Arnold

Gordon R. Arnold

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer







Page 22 of 22
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4417

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Todd L. Parde, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 2007 Filed: February 22, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Todd L. Parde (Parde) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment and five years’ s upervised release. On appeal, Parde argues the district court erred by de nying his downward-departure motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. However, the district c ourt was without authority to sentence him below the statutory minimum because the government did not file a substantial--2- assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and he was not eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f). SeeUnited States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
# C_2016059EN.01001802.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/18

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

(Case T-224/15) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Withdrawal of the contested act - Case not proceeding to judgment))

(2016/C 059/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by V. Elvinger and S. Marx, and subsequently by S. Marx, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament rejecting the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is to pay those incurred by Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is to pay those incurred by Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Douglas D. Cole, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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.


Date:  December 22, 2004

                                        /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
                                        -------------------
                                        Douglas D. Cole
                                        Chief Executive Officer



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
     and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.