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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 204 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels 

illegal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2009 

Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

LEVIN, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and 

exporting cartels illegal. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Oil Producing and 

5 Exporting Cartels Act of 2009’’ or ‘‘NOPEC’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT. 

7 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended 

8 by adding after section 7 the following: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 204 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 7A. OIL PRODUCING CARTELS. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be illegal and a violation 

3 of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality 

4 or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in com5 bination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality 

6 or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, 

7 whether by cartel or any other association or form of co8 operation or joint action— 

9 ‘‘(1) to limit the production or distribution of 

10 oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product; 

11 ‘‘(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural 

12 gas, or any petroleum product; or 

13 ‘‘(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of 

14 trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; 

15 when such action, combination, or collective action has a 

16 direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on 

17 the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural 

18 gas, or other petroleum product in the United States. 

19 ‘‘(b) SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—A foreign state en20 gaged in conduct in violation of subsection (a) shall not 

21 be immune under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from 

22 the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the United 

23 States in any action brought to enforce this section. 

24 ‘‘(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT OF STATE DOC25 TRINE.—No court of the United States shall decline, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•S 204 IS

1 based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determina2 tion on the merits in an action brought under this section. 

3 ‘‘(d) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General of the 

4 United States may bring an action to enforce this section 

5 in any district court of the United States as provided 

6 under the antitrust laws.’’. 

7 SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

8 Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the 

11 semicolon; 

12 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 

13 inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(8) in which the action is brought under sec16 tion 7A of the Sherman Act.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
1800 M S TREET , N W

S UITE 800N

W ASHINGTON
, D C 20036

T EL 202.783.4141

F AX 202.783.5851

WWW

. WBKLAW

. COM

R OBERT G . K IRK

R ACHEL S . W OLKOWITZ

202.383.3363

R K IRK @ WBKLAW

. COM
December 30, 2015

VIA FDMS

Michael Huerta Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue Washington, DC 20590

Re: Bonneville International Corporation d/b/a KSL Broadcast Group Petition for Exemption, Docket No. _____

Dear Mr. Huerta :

Enclosed, o n behalf of Bonneville International Corpo ration d/b/a KSL Broadcast Group

, is a Petition for Exem ption pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to authorize the use of small unmanned aerial systems for newsgathering purposes

. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER LLP

/s/ Robert G. Kirk Robert G. Kirk Rachel S. Wolkowitz Counsel for Bonneville International Corporation d/b/a KSL Broadcast Group

Enclosure
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Dustin Breau 

570 Grinding Circle 

Kaysville, UT 84037 

Dear Mr. Breau: 

This is in response to your February 9, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2015-0314) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). You requested to conduct aerial photography and film 

making using an unmanned aerial system. 

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On 

March 24, the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request 

without further information. Specifically, we asked you to provide the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it 

would benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

On April 28, the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the 

information and finds that you did not provide why granting the request would be in the 

public interest. 
2

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed your 

exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit 

your petition for exemption to the public docket. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Acting Director 

Office of Rulemaking
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2287 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Pigment Green 7 Crude. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Pigment 

Green 7 Crude. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT GREEN 7 CRUDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.20 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Pigment Green 7 Crude) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2287 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Službeni list C 210A/25.

| | ISSN 1977-1088 |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | C 210A |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Informacije i objave | Godište 65.25. svibnja 2022. |

ISSN 1977-1088

Službeni list

Europske unije

C 210A

Hrvatsko izdanje

Informacije i objave

Godište 65.25. svibnja 2022.

---

| Sadržaj | Stranica |
| --- | --- |
| | Ispravci |
| 2022/C 210 A/01 | Ispravak objave Zajedničkog poduzeća za Europu kao kružno biogospodarstvo – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta izvršnog direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20077 ( SL C 206 A, 23.5.2022. ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

Stranica

Ispravci

2022/C 210 A/01

Ispravak objave Zajedničkog poduzeća za Europu kao kružno biogospodarstvo – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta izvršnog direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20077 ( SL C 206 A, 23.5.2022. )

( SL C 206 A, 23.5.2022. )

1

---

| HR | |
| --- | --- |

HR

---

Ispravci

| 25.5.2022 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | CA 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2022

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

CA 210/1

---

Ispravak objave Zajedničkog poduzeća za Europu kao kružno biogospodarstvo – Objava slobodnog radnog mjesta izvršnog direktora (Privremeno osoblje – razred AD 14) – COM/2022/20077

(
  Službeni list Europske unije C 206 A od 23. svibnja 2022.
  )

(2022/C 210 A/01)

Na stranici 5., „Rok za prijavu”, prvi odlomak:

| umjesto: | „Rok za prijavu istječe 13. lipnja 2022. u 12 sati (podne) prema briselskom vremenu, nakon čega se više neće biti moguće prijaviti.”; |
| --- | --- |

umjesto:

„Rok za prijavu istječe 13. lipnja 2022. u 12 sati (podne) prema briselskom vremenu, nakon čega se više neće biti moguće prijaviti.”;

| treba stajati: | „Rok za prijavu istječe 4. srpnja 2022. u 12 sati (podne) prema briselskom vremenu, nakon čega se više neće biti moguće prijaviti.”. |
| --- | --- |

treba stajati:

treba stajati:

„Rok za prijavu istječe 4. srpnja 2022. u 12 sati (podne) prema briselskom vremenu, nakon čega se više neće biti moguće prijaviti.”.

---
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18-3158

___________

IN RE: DEAN C. PLASKETT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 3-17-cv-00067)

District Judge: Ruth Miller

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21

October 11, 2018

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 6, 2018)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Dean C. Plaskett seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District 

Court to rule on a petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A writ of mandamus 

may be warranted where a district court’s “undue delay is tantamount to a failure to 

exercise jurisdiction.” See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). On 

 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

November 6, 2018, a Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation 

concerning Plaskett’s § 2241 petition, and Plaskett has since filed objections. Because 

the case is now moving forward, we find no reason to grant the “drastic remedy” of 

mandamus relief. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 

2005). We have full confidence that the District Court will rule on Plaskett’s petition 

within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we will deny Plaskett’s mandamus petition.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 23, 2019

NO. 03-18-00730-CV

Maria Guadalupe Martinez, Appellant

v.

Benjamin Edward Parker, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 5, 2018. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, 

both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Cape Fear Bank Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Betty V. Norris    
|                      |  | Betty V. Norris        
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.3.3**

 

**AMENDMENT TO THE**

** EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT WITH RANDEL G. OWEN**

 

THIS AMENDMENT (“***Amendment***”), effective on the 18th day of May, 2010 is made by and betweenEmergency Medical Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “**Company**”), and Randel G. Owen (“***Executive***”),in order to amend the Employment Agreement heretofore entered into betweenEmergency Medical Services, L.P. (“***EMS L.P.***”)and Executive, as assigned by EMS L.P. to EMSC on February 10, 2005, andas amended on January 1, 2009 and on March 12, 2009 (collectively the“***Employment Agreement***”).

 

WHEREAS,the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to amendthe the compensation payable to Executive;

 

NOW,THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.             Subsection A of Section 4, “Compensation,”shall be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

 

A.            As fullcompensation for all services rendered by the Executive pursuant to thisAgreement, the Company shall pay to the Executive a salary of Four HundredFifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) per year (“Base Salary”), less applicablewithholdings. The Base Salary shall be payable on a biweekly basis. Executive’scompensation shall be reviewed by the Board annually during the Company’snormal review period, beginning in the year following the first anniversary ofthe Effective Date.

 

2.             Except as specifically set forth herein,all of the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are declared by theparties to be in full force and effect without change.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have executed this Agreement, inmultiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, effective asof May 18, 2010.

 

**EMERGENCYMEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

 

 
| By:           | /s/  William A. Sanger                            |   |
|---------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|          | Name:  William  A. Sanger                    |   |
|          | Title:    Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|          |                                              |   |
|          |                                              |   |
| **EXECUTIVE** |                                              |
| ** **    |                                              |   |
| ** **    |                                              |   |
| By:           | /s/  Randel G. Owen                               |   |
|          | Randel  G. Owen                                   |   |

 

----
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2192 

To extend the reduction of duty on Azoxystrobin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the reduction of duty on Azoxystrobin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AZOXYSTROBIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.51 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Azoxystrobin) is amended— 

7 (1) in the general rate of duty column, by strik8 ing ‘‘6.17%’’ and inserting ‘‘4.7%’’; and 

9 (2) in the effective period column, by striking 

10 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2192 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Febraury 28, 2018 Deana Williamson, Clerk 

### Court of Criminal Appeals Post Office Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Dear Ms. Williamson: \ Re: Writ No. WR-68,455-01 

### In reference to the above captioned Writ, I'm trying to find out whether that( writ was dismissed or denied. Since I was on direct 

### appeal, I'm inclined to believe it was dismissed. Can you please advise me accordingly. Thank You

RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

### HAR07 2018 ueanaWilliamson, Clerk 3872 Lee Or^t-ega, Unit frrP350 South Livingston, Texas 77351
Letter Agreement with Stephen E. King regarding Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.4.1 
 SYNOVA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. 
 Rose Tree Corporate Center 
 1400 N. Providence Road 
 Suite 6010,
Building II 
 Media, Pennsylvania 19063 
 January 12, 2007 
 Synova Healthcare
Group, Inc. 
 1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6010 
 Media,
Pennsylvania 19063 
 Attention: David J. Harrison 
  

	 	Re:	Employment Agreement dated February 10, 2005 

 Dear Mr. Harrison:

 We refer you to the Employment Agreement dated February 10, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”) among
you, Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. (“Group”), and Synova Healthcare, Inc. (the “Company”). Group intends to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger
Agreement”), dated on or about January 12, 2007, with Allendale Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Allendale”). Under the Merger Agreement, Group will add Mr. George Votis to the board of directors. 
 Section 4.5 of the Employment Agreement entitles you to terminate the Employment Agreement in the event of a change in control of the Group or
Company, including certain changes in board composition. In view of the changes in Group’s board composition that have previously occurred and the addition of Mr. Votis as part of the Allendale merger, we are requesting this waiver
of any right you may have to terminate the Employment Agreement as a result of the changes in board composition occurring on or prior to the date hereof and as a result of the Allendale merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. Your
agreement to the above waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any future rights you may have under the Employment Agreement. 
 Please
indicate by signing below your agreement to the above waiver and return a signed copy to Gregg S. Rivkind, Esq. via facsimile at (215) 832-5769 and the original by regular mail sent to the attention of Gregg S. Rivkind, Esq., c/o Blank
Rome LLP, 1 Logan Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. 






 Synova Healthcare Group, Inc. 
 January 12, 2007 
 Page 2 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Stephen E. King
	Stephen E. King
	Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	Agreed to and accepted by:
	
	/s/ David J. Harrison
	David J. Harrison

 Date: January 12, 2007
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark Leonard ROME, Appellee.

No. BN-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 15, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1987.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence seized from a truck in which appellee, Mark Leonard Rome, was a passenger. We reverse the court’s ruling on the ground that appellee failed to establish standing to challenge the search.

According to the testimony presented at the hearing on appellee’s motion to suppress, Lt. Roy of the Fort Walton County Sheriff’s Office was conducting plain-clothed surveillance from a roadside rest area in an unrelated case when he noticed two men in a parked pickup truck. While talking with Officer Steve Sunday, Roy observed the driver, James Adair, through the rear window of the truck holding what appeared to be a clear plastic baggie. Lt. Roy approached the driver’s window of the truck and observed Adair holding a package of cigarette rolling papers and a baggie of what appeared to be marijuana. After advising Adair and appellee that they were under arrest and reading the *Miranda*warnings, Roy seized the baggie from a cubbyhole in the dashboard where Adair indicated he had put it. In seizing the baggie from the cubbyhole, Roy also seized a small opaque bank envelope which contained approximately fourteen grams of cocaine.

Officer Sunday also testified at the hearing; however, neither Adair nor appellee testified, and the issue of standing was not *256raised by either party. The trial court entered an order granting the motion to suppress, indicating at the hearing that if he “could believe 100%” that Lt. Roy saw the baggie of marijuana in Adair’s hand when he approached the truck, he would have found the arrest to be legal.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress, without reaching the legality of the search and seizure, on the basis that appellee failed to bear his burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. *Rakas v. Illinois,*439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); *State v. Jones,*454 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As a mere passenger of the truck, appellee failed to establish a capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment in order to invoke the benefit of the exclusionary rule. *See Rakas v. Illinois, supra; State v. Sears,*493 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); *Acebo v. State,*415 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); *State v. Davis,*415 So.2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); and *State v. Bartz,*431 So.2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

MILLS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 906 Certification

In connection with the report on Form 10-Q of NCI, Inc. (the Company)
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, to the
best of his knowledge and belief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; 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: May 2, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ CHARLES K. NARANG                                                          
|                  |  |  |  | Charles K. Narang                                                              
|                  |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NCI, Inc. and will be
retained by NCI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed July 10, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00343-CV

____________

VINCENT LILLY, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 74682I

ORDER

According to information provided to this court, this is an appeal from a 

final judgment signed March 31, 2014. Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. No contest was timely filed. Accordingly, we issue the 

following order:

The Brazoria County District Clerk is ordered to file the clerk’s record for 

this appeal, containing the required contents listed in Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 34.5(a), with the clerk of this court on or before August 11, 2014.

PER CURIAM