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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 90 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 90

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
 Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Community Reinvestment Act 
                             Regulations''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the

              

 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Community 
Reinvestment Act Regulations'' (85 Fed. Reg. 34734; published June 5, 
2020), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 90

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
 Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Community Reinvestment Act 
                             Regulations''.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2096, A14A2153. IN THE INTEREST OF D. J. T., A CHILD; IN THE

INTEREST IF M. M. R. A CHILD.

The mothers of D. J. T and M. M. R. appeal from the order of the Effingham

County Juvenile Court terminating their parental rights. Given the nature of these

appeals and the gravity of termination proceedings, in light of the breath of materials

omitted from the record – the mothers’ case plans, the shelter care order, all

deprivation and final disposition orders, and the termination hearing exhibits – the

indeterminate amount of time it will take to prepare and transmit these materials to

this Court, and the constitutional time restraints governing this Court’s disposition

of appeals, these cases are remanded to the Clerk of the Juvenile Court of Effingham

County until preparation of the appellate record is completed by the addition of the

designated materials. (The notices of appeal provided that “no portion” of the record

be omitted.) 

When the entire appeal record is prepared, the matter may be then transmitted

to and re-docketed with the Court of Appeals. Upon re-docketing, briefing by the

parties should proceed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 23. 

March 27, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/27/2015
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark Lana, of HS3 Technologies, Inc., hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
of HS3 Technologies, Inc. for the six months ended December 31, 2008 (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 HS3 Technologies, Inc.

Dated February 23, 2009

*/s/ Mark Lana* Mark Lana Chief Executive
Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Director (Principal Financial Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Christopher Alexander Vujovich, Appellant

No. 06-14-00143-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-F-00484). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Carter,* 

participating. *Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Christopher Alexander Vujovich, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 10, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EX-10.3





 Exhibit 10.3 
  


					
			
	



	  	 




  
	  	 1 Hershey Drive
 Smith Falls, ON K7A 0A8

 

	  	 




  
	  	 (855)558-9333
  

	  	 




  
	  	 invest@canopygrowth.com
  

	  	



	  	www.canopygrowth.com

 June 14, 2022 
 Brand House
Group, N.A. Corporation 
 Attention: Julious Grant 
 BY EMAIL

 Dear Julious: 
 Canopy Growth USA, LLC (the
“Company”) is pleased to confirm the following changes to the Monthly Fee set out in the Service Delivery Agreement dated October 5, 2020 as amended October 28, 2020 (the “Agreement”), as further amended by an Amending
Agreement dated June 8, 2021 (the “Amending Agreement), which Monthly Fee change is conditional upon the Principal signing and returning this letter to my attention by June 16, 2022: 

Monthly Fee 
 The Monthly Fee shall be increased to
$44,250 USD per month, exclusive of all applicable taxation. 
 Please note that except as expressly changed within this letter, all other terms of the
Agreement, as amended by the Amending Agreement, remain intact. 
 Regards, 
  





 
 Holly Lukavsky 
 Chief Human
Resources Officer 
  
  

I acknowledge that I have read, understand and agree to the amended terms of service as set out above. 

Dated this 15th day of June, 2022. 

 

	
	 /s/ Julious Grant


 Signature (Julious Grant, on behalf of Brand House Group, N.A. Corporation) 

 
  

1 Hershey Drive    •    Smiths Falls ON    •    K7A 0A8    •    +1.613.706-2185    •    www.tweed.com
Surf Moore, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

MAR - 9 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 1(; (j;j8? 

U.S. Justice Dep't et aI., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
Plaintiff, a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, sues the Department of Justice, the States of 

Mississippi and California and an individual, Charles Moore, Jr., for civil damages authorized by 

18 U.S.C. § 2520, which states: 

Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or 

electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation 

of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the 

United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. 

18 U.S.C. § 2520(a). Demanding $100 million, plaintiff alleges only that "the Defendant 

intentional [sic] intruded on plaintiff seclusion and is [illegible] for relief for offensive & 

objectionable, and tortious intrusion of Privacy Act 1871." Compi. at 1. The statute precludes 

plaintiffs recovery of damages from the United States and plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts 

to provide adequate notice of a claim against the remaining defendants. A separate order of 

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: February ~, 2010 

2
Meeting Osram Sylvania with Chemical Control Division re: Proposed 

Clarification on Activated Phosphors. March 5, 2008

Chair, Dave Schutz, CCD

OS suggested the following agenda items for this meeting, plus whatever

additional topics EPA wished to address:

1. Introductions

2. Description of Osram Sylvania's interest in EPA's Proposed

Clarification.

3. Discusson/clarification of certain aspects of the Proposed

Clarification -- e.g., proper Inventory nomenclature for future

Section 5 notices for phosphors; the submittal and EPA review of

Section 5 notices during the one-year period.

4. The submittal of written comments on or before March 17.

Meeting took place March 5. Attendees from Osram Sylvania were: Duncan 

Turnbull, Carmen Venezia, Joseph Delehant, Blake Biles.

Attendees from EPA were: David Schutz, Donald Sadowsky, Doyoung Lee, 

Kent Anapolle, Roy Seidenstein.

Osram noted that it has been relying on EPA’s guidance that activated 

phosphors were solid mixtures for many years. The correction EPA has 

proposed will require a number of PMNs from Osram for what seem to be 

minor changes. Osram has submitted PMNs for the host part of the 

phosphors it manufactures. Osram would like guidance on when an 

activator is significant, and the extent to which variable compositions 

using the same materials will trigger separate identities. Also, Osram 

may have some situations in which it believes its phosphors can be 

considered to be solid solutions, that is they could be considered not 

to meet the criteria EPA identified in its FR notice as requiring 

activated phosphors to have Inventory identities of their own.

As a second issue, Osram stated that this EPA proposal amounts to a 

regulation of existing chemical substances. A number of materials 

which will be noticed under the EPA proposal are in manufacture now. 

If testing is required for these materials, and the testing time period 

will be longer than the end of the year contemplated for coming into 

compliance, a manufacturer can be required to stop production for that 

material until the testing is submitted. This is §6 regulation done 

under the color of §5. Osram thinks that this kind of regulation, if 

undertaken, should be done under §§ 4 and 6. Some of these materials 

will likely require 90-day studies if they are in the category 

respirable/poorly soluble. Downstream customers can be required to 

change materials. There will probably not be a consortium for this 

testing.
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 90 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency relating to ‘‘Community Reinvestment Act Regulations’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2020 

Ms. WATERS (for herself and Mr. MEEKS) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating 

to ‘‘Community Reinvestment Act Regulations’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Of4 fice of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to ‘‘Com5 munity Reinvestment Act Regulations’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 

6 34734; published June 5, 2020), and such rule shall have 

7 no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,801,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,373,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,541,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,905,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,681,300
<PP&E>                                     117,169,800
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,596,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             158,076,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,323,000
<BONDS>                                     34,253,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,252,500
<OTHER-SE>                                  64,495,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               158,076,700
<SALES>                                    158,135,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           158,135,100
<CGS>                                      115,207,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              145,915,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,708,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,541,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,466,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,220,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,269,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,011,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,011,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned certifies that the annual report on Form 10-K of Bemis Company,Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BemisCompany, Inc.

 
| /s/ Jeffrey H. Curler                                                |                                                                  | /s/ Gene C. Wulf |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey H. Curler, President and   Chief Executive Officer | Gene C. Wulf, Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
| February 28,  2007                                                   | February 28,  2007                                                    |             |

 

64

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1471

___________________________

Robert Lee Bailey,

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant,

v.

Scott P. Fisher,

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: July 16, 2013 

Filed: July 22, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Robert Bailey appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he claimed that he was twice wrongfully subjected

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I.

Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
to prison discipline in the form of, inter alia, loss of good time credits. Upon careful

de novo review, see Mitchell v. U. S. Parole Comm’n, 538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.

2008) (per curiam) (dismissal of § 2241 petition is reviewed de novo), we find no

basis for reversal. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985) (when

prison disciplinary hearing results in loss of good time credits, inmate must receive

(1) advance notice of charges; (2) opportunity--consistent with institutional safety and

correctional goals--to call witnesses and to present documentary evidence; and (3)

factfinder’s written statement of evidence relied upon and reasons for disciplinary

decision; due process is satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision to

revoke good time credits).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Bailey’s pending

motion as moot. 

______________________________

-2-
JUDY ANN JEAN KEETER,

Appellant,

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, 

L.L.C.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2152

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 7, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Aaron K. Bowden, Judge.

Judy Ann Jean Keeter, pro se, Appellant.

William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
HR 133: Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2020

• Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP)

• Local Agriculture Marketing Program (LAMP)

• HR 133 (Section 751) – “PPE Grants”
Specialty Crop 

Block Grant 

Program

• Normally: $75 Million in annual Farm Bill Funding. 

• HR 133 Stimulus: $100 Million in no-year funding 

• AMS expects to spend this ASAP. 
Specialty Crop 

Block Grant 

Program

• 2021 Request for Applications: 

• 1 RFA

• 2 applications (Farm Bill application and HR133 Stimulus application)

• Specialty Crop Industry and State Dept of Ag Input: 

• Compiled flexibility considerations and presented to General Counsel. 

• Some flexibilities already existed but have never been requested. 

• Flexibilities that did not already exist are included, where able. 
Local Agriculture 

Marketing 

Program (LAMP)

• Contains: 

• Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP)

• Regional Food Systems Partnership (RFSP)

• Value Added Producer Grant Program 

• Administered by USDA Rural Development
Farmers Market 

and Local Food 

Promotion 

Program

• Normally: $24 million no-year Farm Bill funding (provided annually)

• 25% match required

• HR 133 COVID Stimulus: $47 million no-year funding

• 10% match required

• HR 133 Omnibus: $7.4 million annual funding

• 25% match required
Regional Food 

System 

Partnership

• Normally: $5 million no-year Farm Bill funding 

(provided annually)

• 25% cash match required (in-kind not allowed)

• HR 133 COVID Stimulus: $10 million no-year funding

• 10% cash OR in-kind match required 
SCBGP, FMLFPP and RFSP 

2021 RFAs coming soon! 
AMS Grant RFAs Already Announced: 

• Fed-State Marketing 

Improvement Grant (FSMIP)

• Acer Access and 

Development Program 

• Maple Syrup Industry

• Microgrants for Food 

Security

• Alaska, Hawaii and Territories
HR 133 

Section 751 

Funds

• Legislation provided funds for grants to support to respond to COVID-19. 

• Focuses on worker safety measures. 

• Eligible entities:

• Small or midsized food processors or distributors

• Seafood processing facilities and processing vessels

• Farmers markets

• Producers

• USDA AMS hosted listening sessions and collected public comments in March.

• AMS is now designing a program that can meet the broad range of needs.
Thank you!
IIA 

Calendar No. 14 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 30 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 17, 2019 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to section 216 

(c)(6)(B) of Public Law 115–44 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the President’s proposal to take an action relating to the application of certain sanctions with respect 

to the Russian Federation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 Congress disapproves of the action relating to the applica4 tion of sanctions imposed with respect to the Russian Fed5 eration proposed by the President in the report submitted 

6 to Congress under section 216(a)(1) of the Russia Sanc7 tions Review Act of 2017 on December 19, 2018, relating 

8 to terminating sanctions imposed on En+ Group plc 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 30 PCS 

1 (‘‘En+’’), UC Rusal plc (‘‘Rusal’’), and JSC 

2 EuroSibEnergo (‘‘ESE’’). 

Passed the House of Representatives January 17, 

2019. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 14 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 30 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the President’s proposal to take an 

tions with respect to the Russian Federation. action relating to the application of certain sancJANUARY 17, 2019 

Read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to 

section 216 (c)(6)(B) of Public Law 115–44 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00034-CV

____________________

NORTH AMERICAN MARINE, INC., Appellant

V.

THE CHARLES HEARD LAW FIRM, PC AND CHARLES HEARD, 

Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-03-02705 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, North American Marine, Inc., and appellees, The Charles Heard 

Law Firm, PC and Charles Heard, filed a joint agreed motion to vacate the trial 

court’s default judgment and to remand the case to the trial court for further 

proceedings. The parties represent that the appellant properly and timely perfected 

this restricted appeal and that reversible error is clearly present on the face of the 

record. See Tex. R. App. P. 30; see also Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 
2

S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009). The parties jointly request that we vacate the trial 

court’s default judgment, remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings, and order that each party bear its own costs and fees incurred as a 

result of this restricted appeal. See Wilson v. Am. Builders & Contractors Supply 

Co., Inc., No. 01-12-00537-CV, 2012 WL 3234059, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Aug. 9, 2012, no pet.). We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial 

court and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, 

and order that each party bear its own costs and fees incurred as a result of this 

restricted appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on April 8, 2015

Opinion Delivered April 9, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.