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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 711 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 711

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
  the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential 
                               customers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2014

 Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. 
 Joyce) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
  the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential 
                               customers.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced that it may need to 
        eliminate or reduce levels of door-to-door delivery service by the 
        conversion of millions of homes and businesses to centralized delivery 
        or curbside and require those who wish to retain their door service to 
        pay a delivery tax;
Whereas reduced levels of service will have an immediate impact on current year 
        revenue and a long-term impact on the viability of a business inevitably 
        causing a larger drop in revenue from service cuts than from the 
        estimated savings of elimination or reducing door delivery;
Whereas door delivery is a vital service that the American people have relied on 
        since the 1860s in both rural and urban areas and ensures the security 
        of mail and packages;
Whereas voluntary conversion of businesses in 2013 equated to a mere 0.8 percent 
        of voluntary conversions confirming that businesses depend on in-person 
        contact with letter carriers to ensure transactional security and 
        initiate new business and revenue for the Postal Service;
Whereas millions of Americans will be forced to retrieve their daily mail and 
        packages from a centralized location removing the daily convenience for 
        Americans in receiving checks, medications and other essential items; 
        and
Whereas eliminating or reducing door delivery services will serve as a hindrance 
        for the elderly and disabled who will be forced to retrieve their mail 
        and packages and be required to submit to a cumbersome application 
        process in order to opt out of the requirement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all businesses and 
residential customers.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020304EN.01001501.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/15

---

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-445/20)

(2020/C 304/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
Habersham Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, and 333-48507 on Forms S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report dated
January 26, 2001, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Habersham
Bancorp and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report
on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp.


                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2001
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10.21


                    AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         AGREEMENT dated as of November 1, 1995 between Douglas B. Harper
("Employee") and Roto-Rooter, Inc. (the "Company").

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company have entered into an Employment
Agreement dated November 1, 1990 ("Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend the Employment
Agreement in certain respects.

         NOW, THEREFORE, Employee and the Company mutually agree that the
Employment Agreement shall be amended, effective as of November 1, 1995 as
follows:

         A.    The date of October 31, 1999 set forth in Section 1.2 of the
               Employment Agreement, is hereby deleted and the date of October
               31, 2000 is hereby substituted therefor.

         B.    The base salary amount of $184,500 per annum as set forth in the
               first sentence of Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is
               hereby deleted and the base salary amount of $193,700 per annum
               is hereby substituted therefor.

         Except as specifically amended by this Amendment No. 5 to Employment
Agreement, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in
accordance with its original terms, conditions and provisions.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this amendatory
agreement as of the date first above written.

                                        EMPLOYEE

                                          
                                           
                                        /s/ Douglas B. Harper    
                                        -------------------------------------


                                        ROTO-ROOTER, INC.


                                        /s/ William R. Griffin   
                                        -------------------------------------
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 

In connection with the Annual Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul H. Palmer, Chief Financial 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: 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
# C_2021019EN.01006401.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/64

---

Action brought on 11 November 2020 — Novelis v Commission

(Case T-680/20)

(2021/C 19/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Inc. (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: S. Völcker, T. Caspary and R. Benditz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision of 31 August 2020 in Case No. M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris rejecting Novelis’ request for a one-month extension of the Closing Period pursuant to Clause 49 of the Novelis/Aleris Commitments; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision of 31 August 2020 in Case No. M.9076 — Novelis/Aleris rejecting Novelis’ request for a one-month extension of the Closing Period pursuant to Clause 49 of the Novelis/Aleris Commitments;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted by the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Competition rather than the College of Commissioners in violation of the principle of collegiate responsibility. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted by the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Competition rather than the College of Commissioners in violation of the principle of collegiate responsibility.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s right to be heard.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons allowing the applicant to exercise its rights of defence in an effective manner. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons allowing the applicant to exercise its rights of defence in an effective manner.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment and ignores that the applicant has good cause to apply for an extension. The applicant further alleges that in light of its legal consequences and the availability of several less onerous means, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment and ignores that the applicant has good cause to apply for an extension. The applicant further alleges that in light of its legal consequences and the availability of several less onerous means, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

---
# C_2022311EN.01001101.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2022 — Jose A. Alfonso Arpon v EUIPO — Puma (PLUMAflex by Roal)

(Case T-357/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark PLUMAflex by Roal - Earlier EU figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 311/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL (Arnedo, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2021 (Case R 2991/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
# C_2022222EN.01002902.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/29

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Bambu Sales v EUIPO (BAMBU)

(Case T-342/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 222/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bambu Sales, Inc. (Secaucus, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 (Case R 1702/2020 1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BAMBU as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Bambu Sales, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Bambu Sales, Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
c/:. 

Stuart S. MacPherson 

P.O. Box 807 

Cardiff, Calif. 92007 

June 18,2007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 ^ , . /, . -^i. . . ^^^ 

Dear Judge Goodwin, 

I am in receipt of a Notice of Assignment of Proceeding for Case No. 2009WP910116 

which informs me that you will be the presiding Judge in this hearing. As you are based 

in Washington D.C. I must assume that the hearing will be taking place in that city. As 

travel to Washington, D.C. and time away from my home in San Diego will present an 

imdue hardship I respectfully request, as did Laura Ponto, Complainant's Counsel, that 

the hearing for the above-referenced proceedmg be held in San Diego. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

C 3 -^X > • 

S. MacPherson 

fe. rr. 

ro 

CO 

1 

-0 

CJ1 

ipo?? 

-1 . CO
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

1

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2939

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri. 

Rickey Layne Keeth, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 14, 1998

 Filed: December 18, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Rickey Layne Keeth pleaded guilty to making a false statement in the

acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and to possessing

firearms while subject to a domestic violence protection order, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the district court sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and 1

three years supervised release. Keeth&s period of supervised release commenced in

January 1998. As a condition of his supervised release, Keeth was not to attempt to

contact his
-2-

ex-wife in any manner. At a revocation hearing in June 1998, the district court found

Keeth had violated this condition, revoked Keeth&s supervised release, and sentenced

him to 12 months imprisonment and 24 months supervised release. Keeth now

challenges his prison term, and we affirm.

After a thorough review of the record, we reject Keeth&s argument that the

district court failed to consider the applicable policy statements in Chapter 7 of the

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

sentencing him to 12 months imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States

v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v.

Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 Guidelines are advisory

and nonbinding; district court may depart from revocation imprisonment range when,

in its considered discretion, such departure is warranted). We deny Keeth&s motion for

a stay pending appeal and temporary injunction, as well as his motion for appointment

of counsel. Keeth&s counsel&s motion to withdraw is granted.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Lester J. CHASE, Appellant, v. Joan T. CHASE, Appellee.

No. 67-492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 14, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023223EN.01001901.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2023 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission

(Case T-102/21) (1)

(State aid - Measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary framework for State aid measures - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 223/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bastion Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), and the 35 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Braeken, X.Y.G. Versteeg, L. Elzas and T. Hieselaar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and M. Farley, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 on State Aid SA.59535 (2020/N) — The Netherlands — Amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bastion Holding BV and the other applicant parties whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bastion Holding BV and the other applicant parties whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
# C_2023054EN.01000802.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Oriol Junqueras i Vies v European Parliament

(Case C-115/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Institutional law - Members of the European Parliament - Loss of eligibility following a criminal conviction - Declaration that the seat of a Member of the European Parliament is vacant - Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 54/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret and A. Van den Eynde Adroer, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and J.-C. Puffer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60591 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES KEITH JOHNSON, a/k/a Thunder Eagle Ghost Dancer, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95CR049-B

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Keith Johnson, a/k/a Thunder Eagle Ghost Dancer, appeals his convictions for transportation of stolen money in interstate commerce and money laundering. Johnson contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by refusing to allow the testimony of two witnesses, Danny Schertz and Terry Bell.No. 96-60591 - 2 - The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of Schertz and Bell because the testimony would have been cumulative and was not needed to assist Johnson in receiving a fair trial under the circumstances of his case or to assist in Johnson’s defense. See United States v. Gonzales , 79 F.3d 413, 424 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 183 (1996); United States v. Davis , 639 F.2d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 1981). In addition, Schertz’s and Bell’s testimonies would have been irrelevant to the crimes for which Johnson was being tried.
AFFIRMED.