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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1595 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1595

  To prohibit funding for the United Nations in the event the United 
 Nations grants Palestine a change in status from a permanent observer 
  entity before a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached with 
                                Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2011

   Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
Wicker, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Coats, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roberts, 
 Mr. DeMint, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Coburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit funding for the United Nations in the event the United 
 Nations grants Palestine a change in status from a permanent observer 
  entity before a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached with 
                                Israel.

    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 ``Solidarity with Israel Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON FUNDING OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

    No amounts may be appropriated or otherwise made available for 
contributions to the United Nations if the Security Council or General 
Assembly of the United Nations grants Palestine, the Palestinian 
Liberation Organization, or the state of Palestine a change in United 
Nations status from a permanent observer ``entity'' before the 
Secretary of State certifies to Congress that a comprehensive peace 
agreement has been reached with the sovereign state of Israel.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1633 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1633

 To amend chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
    basis utilized for annual adjustments in amounts of educational 
            assistance for members of the Selected Reserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2011

 Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
    basis utilized for annual adjustments in amounts of educational 
            assistance for members of the Selected Reserve.

    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 ``Selected Reserve Education 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF BASIS FOR ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS IN AMOUNTS OF 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
              RESERVE.

    (a) In General.--Section 16131(b)(2) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``equal to'' and all that follows and 
inserting ``not less than the percentage by which--
            ``(A) the average cost of undergraduate tuition in the 
        United States, as determined by the National Center for 
        Education Statistics, for the last academic year preceding the 
        beginning of the fiscal year for which the increase is made, 
        exceeds
            ``(B) the average cost of undergraduate tuition in the 
        United States, as so determined, for the academic year 
        preceding the academic year described in subparagraph (A).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply to adjustments in 
amounts of educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve 
that are made for fiscal years beginning on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012138EN.01003402.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/34

---

Action brought on 13 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-19/12)

(2012/C 138/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s note concerning the applicant’s administrative status and for compensation for damage.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the undated note, bearing in the top right hand corner of the first of its two pages, the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011)217354 — 28/02/2011’ (sic), the details and content of which first came to the applicant’s attention on a date not before 6 April 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the undated note, bearing in the top right hand corner of the first of its two pages, the reference ‘Ref Ares (2011)217354 — 28/02/2011’ (sic), the details and content of which first came to the applicant’s attention on a date not before 6 April 2011;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 15 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the note of 28 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 15 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the note of 28 February 2011;

| — | Annul the note of 14 September, received by the applicant on a date not before 20 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the note of 14 September, received by the applicant on a date not before 20 October 2011;

| — | Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the note of 28 February 2011 and the note of 14 September 2011, in the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the note of 28 February 2011 and the note of 14 September 2011, in the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Quarterly Report”),I, Douglas M. Pihl, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1.     | The  Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                   |
| 2.     | The  information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.      |

 
| Date:   August 11, 2008 | By:    |      /s/  Douglas M. Pihl |
|-----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   |                                               |   Douglas  M. Pihl |
|                              |   |                                               |   Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2013304EN.01001702.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Godrej Industries and VVF v Council

(Case T-6/12) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Adjustment for currency conversion claimed - Burden of proof - Injury - Definitive anti-dumping duty)

2013/C 304/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Godrej Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India), and VVF Ltd (Mumbai) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, with G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, (Hamburg, Germany), Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor); and European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Godrej Industries Ltd and VVF Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and also those incurred by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Godrej Industries Ltd and VVF Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and also those incurred by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
#### Fred E. MEYER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Janice HILL, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 74614.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 22, 1999.

*587Pedroli *&*Gauthier, Robert H. Pedroli, Clayton, for appellant.

Boggs, Backer & Bates, L.L.C., Beth C. Boggs, Robert P. Sass, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., CRANDALL and AHRENS, J.J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Fred E. Meyer raises three points on appeal. Meyer claims that the trial court abused its discretion in: (1) denying Meyer’s motion for mistrial when Hill’s counsel commented that Meyer’s gross salary was not detrimentally affected in the year of the accident; (2) denying Meyer’s motion for mistrial following Hill’s closing argument because statements that all of the medical bills had been paid was a violation of the Collateral Source Rule and is presumed prejudicial error; and (3) denying Meyer’s motion for new trial and request for additur and that Hill’s counsel improperly made a “send a message” closing argument.

We have read the briefs, reviewed the legal file and transcript. We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.
# C_2013046EN.01001501.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/15

---

Action brought on 27 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-544/12)

2013/C 46/28

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Simonsson and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6(2), 7, 8, 9 and 13 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6(2), 7, 8, 9 and 13 of that directive;

1

| — | impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/12/EC at the daily rate of EUR 75 002,88 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/12/EC at the daily rate of EUR 75 002,88 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2009/12/EC expired on 15 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.

1

---
No. 96-5930.

#### Howell *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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



I, Corey Goodman, 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 on Form
10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 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 report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Corey Goodman      
|                         |  |     |  | Corey Goodman          
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, John Doyle, 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 on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 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 report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Doyle         
|                         |  |     |  | John Doyle             
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1704 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1704

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify certain authorities 
 relating to the strategic airlift aircraft force structure of the Air 
                                 Force.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 13, 2011

 Ms. Ayotte (for herself and Mr. Reed) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify certain authorities 
 relating to the strategic airlift aircraft force structure of the Air 
                                 Force.

    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 ``Strategic Airlift Force Structure 
Reform Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. STRATEGIC AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT FORCE STRUCTURE OF THE AIR FORCE.

    Section 8062(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Effective October 1, 2009, the 
        Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''; and
            (2) by striking ``316 aircraft'' and inserting ``301 
        aircraft''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012331EN.01001602.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/16

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2012 by medi GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09 medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-410/12 P)

(2012/C 331/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in full the judgment of the General Court under appeal (Case T-470/09; judgment of 12 July 2012); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in full the judgment of the General Court under appeal (Case T-470/09; judgment of 12 July 2012);

| — | grant in full the form of order sought at first instance in accordance with the application submitted to the General Court of the European Union and the amendments in the oral hearing on 2 May 2012 as recorded in the minutes. |
| --- | --- |

—

grant in full the form of order sought at first instance in accordance with the application submitted to the General Court of the European Union and the amendments in the oral hearing on 2 May 2012 as recorded in the minutes.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by medi GmbH & Co. KG against the decision of 1 October 2009 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark.

The appellant relies in essence on the following ground of appeal.

The General Court is said to have erred in law in its application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) in that it proceeded on the assumption that the word sign ‘medi’ does not have the requisite minimum degree of distinctiveness for a Community trade mark. That is incorrect, as that word sign is not a conventional abbreviation of the word ‘medicine’ for the relevant average English-speaking consumer.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 312

- C V



### ____________________

LEROY DAVID SCHULTZ

, Appellant

V.

CHRISTIE NICOLE SCHULTZ , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 418th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 14

- 08

- 08814 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Leroy David Schultz filed a notice of appeal on August 4, 2015. He filed an

affidavit of indigence on August 17, 2015. We notified the parties that an extension

of time to file the affidavit of indigence was required , and gave the appellant until

December 9, 2015, to file a motion for an extension of time to file an affidavit of

indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(3). No response has been filed. The

appellant failed to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or2 other action within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justi ce

Submitted on D ecember 22, 2015

Opinion Delivered D ecember 23, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# C_2012184EN.01002302.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Action brought on 13 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-34/12)

2012/C 184/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/207/11 of 3 December 2011 rejecting the request for review made by the applicant on 3 August 2011, against the earlier decision of that selection board not to invite the applicant to the assessment centre stage, communicated to the latter by letter from ESPO dated 26 July 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implied decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AD/207/11 of 3 December 2011 rejecting the request for review made by the applicant on 3 August 2011, against the earlier decision of that selection board not to invite the applicant to the assessment centre stage, communicated to the latter by letter from ESPO dated 26 July 2011;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused as a consequence of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused as a consequence of the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### STATE ex rel. Leonard HEBRARD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 97-KH-2526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Leonard Hebrard, applying for motion to enforce this Court’s Order dated January 30,1998; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 93-2176; to *64the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 97-KH-0724, 97-KH-0927.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.