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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3186 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 119

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3186

                          [Report No. 103-347]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana, 
      as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 10, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 119
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3186

                          [Report No. 103-347]

To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana, 
      as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1993

   Mr. Tauzin (for himself, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Fields of 
  Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Baker of Louisiana) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Public Works and Transportation

                           November 10, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana, 
      as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 800 East Main Street in 
Houma, Louisiana, is designated as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, or other 
paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
is deemed to be a reference to the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United 
States Courthouse''.
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT C. KONOP,

 Appellant,

 and

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF

UNSECURED CREDITORS,

 Creditor,

 v.

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Reorganiized Debtor - Chapter 11

Bankruptcy Case No. 03-00817,

 Appellee,

 and

JOSHUA GOTBAUM and OFFICE OF

THE U.S. TRUSTEE,

 Trustees.

No. 08-16128

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00223-DAEBMK

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

OCT 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop’s

motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied. 

2 08-16128

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming

the bankruptcy court’s order denying Konop’s motion to amend or clarify his proof

of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §158(d). We review decisions of

the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s

determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004).

 We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop’s proof of

claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary

focused on monetary damages and included only a single, past-tense reference to

equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d

1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for

clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying
3 08-16128

Konop’s motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc.

v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Konop’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Konop’s request for judicial notice is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
# nop
# C_2013051EN.01000302.xml

| 22.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6798 — CDC/BULL/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 51/03

On 30 January 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6798. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6798. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Robert L. ADAMS, III, Petitioner, v. Ted POWERS, Director and General Manager, Tin Pan Alley, Inc., Respondent.

No. 43787.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1973.

Robert L. Adams, III, in pro. per.

ADKINS, Justice.

The motion of movant, Robert L. Adams, III, to proceed *in forma pauperis*upon a petition for writ of replevin, must be denied for failure to comply with the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 57.081, F.S.A.

Said motion to proceed being denied, this Court is without authority to consider said petition for writ of replevin.

This order is issued without prejudice against movant to proceed in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction for certification of insolvency in the manner required by Fla. Stat. § 57.081, F.S.A., for proceedings *in forma pauperis.*Such certification can be obtained from the clerk in each action only upon affidavit of insolvency which is supported by a written certificate signed by a a member of The Florida Bar of the county thát he has investigated the applicant’s affidavit and found it to be true, and has investigated the applicant’s claim and believes it to be meritorious as a matter of law.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REGINALD LENARD SMITH,

individually and as a class representative,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 12-56690

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10666-GAFPJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 7, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Sheriff Lee Baca appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on

his motion for judgment on the pleadings in this putative class action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Reginald Smith alleges that he has twice been wrongfully

arrested on a Los Angeles County Superior Court felony warrant issued for another

FILED

AUG 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
person with a similar name and physical characteristics, resulting in his

incarceration and the denial of his passport application. Smith claims that the Los

Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s refusal to update its warrant database with

readily available biometric information about warrant subjects and exonerees

violates his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The only issue before us is

whether Baca is entitled to qualified immunity regarding Smith’s Fourteenth

Amendment claim based upon alleged violations of his right to international travel. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.

The district court erred in concluding that the law was clearly established so

as to put a reasonable official in Baca’s position on notice that his alleged conduct

deprived Smith of the right to international travel without due process of law. See

Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); see also

Green v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 751 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring

clarity in “the law governing the conduct at issue”). Although the right to

international travel is clearly established in general, see Eunique v. Powell, 302

F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2002), no law clearly establishes that a state official’s actions

leading to the State Department’s discretionary denial of a passport application

may effect a deprivation of the right. See 22 C.F.R. § 51.60(b)(9).

2
We decline to decide whether Smith has adequately pleaded a Fourteenth

Amendment violation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). We

also decline to address the Fourth Amendment issues discussed by the parties. We

conclude only that Sheriff Baca is entitled to qualified immunity because the law

governing Smith’s right to travel claim is not clearly established. 

Sheriff Baca’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vodavi Technology,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Gregory K. Roeper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  (1)
    
    The 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(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Gregory K. RoeperGregory K. Roeper
Chief Executive Officer
April 27, 2004
 19
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-24-2018]

                    On April 6, 2018, the Town of Limon, Colorado, grantee of FTZ 293, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Laser Galicia America LLC, within FTZ 293, in Aurora, Colorado.                          ( print page 40226)    

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (83 FR 17143, April 18, 2018). On August 6, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: August 8, 2018.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-17419 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2013174EN.01000501.xml

| 20.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 June 2013

2013/C 174/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3406 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4596 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85580 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5750 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2326 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6765 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,686 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,99 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7016 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2598 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4978 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5238 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4105 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3673 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3981 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6749 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6841 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 515,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3336 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2139 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4805 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 282,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2250 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,804 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,1798 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,197 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9208 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2401 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,8210 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3406

JPY

Japanese yen

127,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4596

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85580

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5750

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2326

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6765

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,686

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,99

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7016

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2598

RON

Romanian leu

4,4978

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5238

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4105

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3673

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3981

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6749

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6841

KRW

South Korean won

1 515,21

ZAR

South African rand

13,3336

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2139

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4805

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 282,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2250

PHP

Philippine peso

57,804

RUB

Russian rouble

43,1798

THB

Thai baht

41,197

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9208

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2401

INR

Indian rupee

78,8210

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
V. IN SUPREME COURT

KBA Nos. 13353 & 12613

,$ixpremE Courf of

2005-SC-0776-KB

v

INQUIRY COMMISSION COMPLAINANT

KENNETH EUGENE RYLEE, JR. RESPONDENT

KBA NO. 85636

ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION

TO BE PUBLISHED

Kenneth Eugene Rylee, Jr., whose bar roster address is 111 Park Place,

Covington, Kentucky 41011, has been charged with engaging in organized crime,

criminal syndicate, a class B felony, and theft by extortion over $300, a class D felony.

We agree with the Inquiry Commission that there is probable cause to believe, pursuant

to SCR 3 .165(1)(b), that the conduct of Rylee poses a substantial threat of harm to his

clients or to the public at large.

In addition, Rylee has been charged in Woodford District Court, case No. 05-M00028, with two counts of criminal solicitation in violation of KRS 506.030, class A

misdemeanors.

It is therefore ORDERED that Kenneth Eugene Rylee, Jr., be and is hereby

temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky until

further order of this Court .

It is further ORDERED that :
1) Within 20 days from the date of the entry of the order of suspension,

Rylee shall notify all clients in writing of his inability to continue to represent them, and

shall furnish copies of the letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar

Association .

2) Pursuant to SCR 3 .165(6), Rylee shall immediately, to the extent

reasonably possible, cancel and cease any advertising activities in which he is

engaged .

3) The temporary suspension of Rylee shall be effective with the entry of this

order and shall continue in effect until such time as the merits of this disciplinary

proceeding can be finally determined by this Court in accordance with SCR 3 .370 or

SCR 3 .480, or until such time as Rylee can show good cause why the order of

temporary suspension should be amended or dissolved .

4) Rylee shall pay all costs of these proceedings for which execution may

issue .

All concur

ENTERED : November 23, 2005 .
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:

Linda Gosnell

Chief Bar Counsel

Greg Munson

Office of Bar Counsel

Kentucky Bar Association

514 West Main Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :

Gardner L. Turner

Sturgill, Turner & Truitt

155 East Main Street

Lexington, KY 40507

Harry P . Hellings, Jr.

214 E . Fourth Street

Covington, KY 41011

Kenneth E . Rylee, Jr.

111 Park Place

Covington, KY 41011
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

              CONSENT OF INDUSTRY ANALYST AND MARKET RESEARCH FIRM


    As an industry analyst and market research firm, we hereby consent to the
use of any data contained in this registration statement (Registration No.
333-39418) which references our firm as the source of such data and to all
references to our Firm included in this Amendment No. 4 to Form S-1 Registration
Statement.


/s/ Bassoe Offshore Consultants Limited of Edinburgh (UK)


September 6, 2000
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 29, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C., Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 14

- 00744

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- PA

- 01143

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against Mother, Raquel P.,

or Father, Paul C, in relation to this appeal because they each qualify as

indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 8, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00744

- CV

In the Interest of B.C., P.C., Jr., and A.C.

v.

(NO. 2013

- PA

- 01143 IN 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 8, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### In re TRAFFIC COURT RULES 6.290 AND 6.575.

No. 46571-K.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 11, 1978.

Richard E. Cox, Executive Secretary of the Traffic Court Review Committee, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a petition from the Traffic Court Review Committee, Rule 6.290 of the Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure is amended and Rule 6.575 is created in the manner as appended to this opinion and said rules are hereby adopted. These amendments shall be effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

Rule 6.290. WITHHOLDING ADJUDICATION PROHIBITED: WHEN

(a) Pursuant to the provisions of section 322.281 of Florida Statutes, no court shall withhold adjudication of guilt or the imposition of sentence for the offense of driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, while having an unlawful blood alcohol level or while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, model glue, or any substance controlled by chapter 893 of Florida Statutes.

(b) The Court is also prohibited from accepting a plea of guilty or *nolo contendere*to a lesser offense from a person charged under the provisions of Chapter 322 of the Florida Statutes, whose chemical results show a blood alcohol content by weight of .20 percent or more.

Rule 6.575. RETENTION OF CASE FILES

For the purpose of record retention pursuant to the General Records Schedule D-T 1, case files with an outstanding or unsatisfied D-6 shall be considered disposed of five years after the submission of the D-6 by the clerk to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.
#### Wynn THOMAS and Diane Thomas, Appellants, v. Neil D. HENRY, Appellee.

No. 72-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.