alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE XIX

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPACE

Article 185

(ex Article 169 TEC)

(ex Article 169 TEC)

In implementing the multiannual framework programme, the Union may make provision, in agreement with the Member States concerned, for participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes.

---
As discussed at the NOSB Meeting 

October 17, 2001

Proposed change to the NOP regulations, subpart B, Applicability

Mr. Riddle motioned to adopt an amendment removing handlers from the $5,000 organic sales 

exemption, thereby limiting the exempt status to producers only. The motion passed 

unanimously, with 2 absent.
**
**Exhibit 13**

**906 Certification**

The certification setforth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report of Canon Inc. on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Fujio Mitarai, Chairman & CEO of Canon Inc., and Toshizo Tanaka, Executive Vice President & CFO of Canon Inc., eachcertifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

 
 1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 
 2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Canon Inc. and its subsidiaries. 

 

/s/ Fujio Mitarai 

Fujio Mitarai

Chairman & CEO

June 26, 2019

/s/ Toshizo Tanaka 

Toshizo Tanaka

Executive Vice President & CFO

June 26, 2019
**
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1061 

To modify the boundary of the Fort Scott National Historic Site in the 

State of Kansas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. WATKINS (for himself, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

ESTES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Fort Scott National Historic 

Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fort Scott National 

5 Historic Site Boundary Modification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FORT SCOTT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY. 

7 Public Law 95–484 (92 Stat. 1610) is amended— 

8 (1) in the first section— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1061 IH

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘, by purchase with ap2 propriated funds, or by exchange’’ after ‘‘dona3 tion’’; and 

4 (B) by striking the proviso; and 

5 (2) in section 2— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘SEC. 2. When’’ and in7 serting the following: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—When’’; and 

10 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(b) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—The boundary of 

12 the Fort Scott National Historic Site established under 

13 subsection (a) is modified as generally depicted on the 

14 map referred to as ‘Fort Scott National Historic Site Pro15 posed Boundary Modification’, numbered 471/80,057, and 

16 dated February 2016.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 5, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50139 Summary Calendar

GABRIEL CONTRERAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-02-CV-227-SS

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Contreras appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for attorney’s fees following the remand of his case to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings. The district court determined that Contreras’s attorney had filed a semi-standard brief in the district court that did not address the issue for which the case was remanded and that an award of attorney’s fees would be unjust. Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s denial of Contreras’s petitionfor attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. See State of

La., ex rel. Guste v. Lee , 853 F.2d 1219, 1221, 1224 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Hensely v. Eckehart , 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983); U.S. v. 27.09 Acres of Land in Town of Harrison , 43 F.3d 769, 773-74 (2d Cir. 1994). Contreras’s attorney did not brief the issue that served as the basis for the remand and the attorney’s efforts did nothing more than to keep Contreras’s case alive. The attorney’s fees were thus expended “efforts that achieved no appreciable advantage;” the attorney “made no contribution” to the claim upon which Contreras’s case was remanded; and the attorney is not entitled to fees for simply keeping the case alive to allow for the district court to reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision based upon a case to which the attorney drew no attention and which may no longer require remand. 27.09 Acres , 43 F.3d at 773; see Milton v. Shalala , 17 F.3d 812, 814 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Frank v. Barnhart , 326 F.3d 618, 619 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court AFFIRMS the denial of the petition for attorney’s fees.
EXHIBIT 31(i)
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Camco Financial Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluations; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:  October 20, 2009

/s/ James E. HustonJames E. HustonChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 24, 2020. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 24, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0021. JOHN ALVIN HARMON et al. v. JEFFREY T. COPELAND et al. . Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 19CV0458
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF PEANUTS

FOR RELEASE AT 1:30 P.M. CT January 2, 2020

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of peanuts. The peanuts were sold 

under Peanut Invitation No.16 dated December 11, 2019.

Catalog 

Lot Catalog Location Purchaser Tons Sold Bid Price (per ton)

CCC 

Revenue 

Peanut 

Type

Lot #50 Mount Olive, NC Georgia Farm Service 1,249.44 $ 351.10 $ 438,678.38 Virginia
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-50429 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE DE LA PAZ MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDA No. P-97-CR-234-1

_________________________________________________________________ February 19, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Jose de la Paz Moreno has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent r eview of the brief and record discloses no
nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excluded from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                         Page 29

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, John P. Derham Cato,, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
Cato Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:

1.       the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended February 1, 2003 (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.

Dated: April 8, 2004

                                          /s/ John P. Derham Cato
                                          ---------------------------
                                          John P. Derham Cato
                                          Chairman, President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
##### 



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 I, Geoffrey G. Meyers, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Manor Care, Inc.
(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 to the best of my knowledge:  (1)
    The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Report. /s/ Geoffrey G. Meyers Geoffrey G. Meyers
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1526 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 297
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1526

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            November 7, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. EVA G. HEWITT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Eva G. Hewitt Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eva G. 
Hewitt Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 297

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1526

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Edward E. Bourk, Respondent, v National Cleaning, Appellant.

—Mercure, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Peter Patsalos, J.), entered April 10, 1990 in Orange County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On January 9, 1988, plaintiff was leaving his place of work in a building owned by his employer when he slipped and fell, suffering the injuries forming the basis for this action. The claim of liability is predicated upon the fact that defendant had contracted with the employer to perform services which *828included snow removal, that it had snowed on the day in question and that defendant had failed to remove an accumulation of snow and ice from the area where plaintiff fell. Following discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that it breached no duty of care to plaintiff as a matter of law. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant appeals.

We reverse. In our view, defendant did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to plaintiff *(see, Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp.,*76 NY2d 220, 226). Although there is no question that defendant’s contract imposed a duty in favor of the employer, there is no basis for a finding that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary of that contract *(see, supra; Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co.,*247 NY 160, 164) and “mere inaction, without more, establishes only a cause of action for breach of contract” *(Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., supra,*at 226; *see, Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., supra,*at 167; *Andreaccio v Unique Parking Corp.,*158 AD2d 222, 227-228). Where performance of contractual obligations has induced detrimental reliance on continued performance, mere inaction may give rise to tort liability *(Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., supra).*Here, however, the record is devoid of evidence of plaintiff’s detrimental reliance on defendant’s continued performance or that defendant’s actions had otherwise "advanced to such a point as to have launched a force or instrument of harm” *(Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co., supra,*at 168; *see, Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., supra).*Accordingly, the order of Supreme Court should be reversed and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted, summary judgment awarded to defendant and complaint dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00314]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors 
Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on January 14, 2013, from 8:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place at the Hyatt French Quarter; 800 
Iberville Street, New Orleans, LA 70112.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Issued on: December 28, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-00314 Filed 1-7-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA SANTOS SAENZ OVIEDO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73083

Agency No. A094

- 287

- 280

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Maria Santos Saenz Oviedo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’ s decision denying her application for withholding of

removal and cancellation of removal

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73083

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Latter

- Singh v. Holder , 668 F.3d

1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) , and we revie w for substa ntial evidence the agency’s

findings of fact, Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006)

. We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Saenz Oviedo ’s petty theft convictions

under California Penal Code section 484 re nder her statutorily ineligible for

cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. §

1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) ; see also Castillo

- Cruz v

. Holder

, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 ( 9th

Cir. 2009) (recognizing petty theft under California law as a categorical crime

involving moral turpitude)

. B ecause Saenz Oviedo has been convicted of more

than one crime involving moral turpitude

, Saenz Oviedo does not qualify for the

petty offense exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)

.

The agency found that Saenz Oviedo failed to establish a clear probability of

future persecution based on her generalized fear of violence in Honduras or her

fear that her son will be harmed because he is effeminate. Substantial evidence

supports the se fi nding s. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.

2010) (“An [applicant ’ s] desire to be free fro m harassment by criminals motivated

by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected

ground”); see also Fakhry v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008)

(evidence did not compel a finding of future persecution ). Further, we lack3 14

- 73083

jurisdiction to consider the particular social group argument that Saenz Oviedo

presents in her opening brief because she did not raise it to the BIA

. See Barron v.

Ashcroft , 35 8 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or

claim s in administrative proceedings below). Thus, we deny the petition as to

Saenz Oviedo ’s withholding of removal claim.

We deny Sainz Oviedo’s request to refer the case to mediation.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.