alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHARLES WEINSCHENK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-2510 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(November 9, 2021)

On June 24, 2021, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se action “in its entirety for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. In response, Plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order on June 30, 2021. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF 

No. 29, at 1. On July 12, 2021, however, Plaintiff then filed an “Expedited Request for Dismissal.” 

Therein, Plaintiff requested a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(2), based on his desire to “voluntarily cede th[is] matter.” Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 30, at 1. In 

that same motion, Plaintiff also requested that the Court “dismiss[] the action prior to ruling on the 

pending . . . Request for Reconsideration.” Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff’s [29] Motion for Reconsideration and [30] Expedited Request for Dismissal are 

presently pending before the Court. First, the Court will deny the [29] Motion for Reconsideration 

as moot. This ruling comports with Plaintiff’s decision to “voluntarily cede” his position in this 

case, id. at 1, and his corresponding request for the Court not to rule on his motion for 

reconsideration, but instead deny that motion as moot, see id. at 2 (The “Court’s indulgence is 

requested in denying [the] pending motion as moot at the plaintiff’s request.”).
2

Second, the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s “Expedited Request for Dismissal.” Again, 

this motion asks the Court for a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(2). As a general matter, courts grant dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) “unless the defendant 

would suffer prejudice other than the prospect of a second lawsuit or some tactical disadvantage.” 

Conafay v. Wyeth Labs., 793 F.2d 350, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, courts evaluating Rule 

41(a)(2) motions also consider “the adequacy of the plaintiff’s explanation for voluntary dismissal”

and “the stage of the litigation at the time the motion to dismiss is made.” Mitchell v. U.S. Bank 

Nat’l Ass’n for Wells Fargo Asset Sec. Corp. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4, 

293 F. Supp. 3d 209, 213 (D.D.C. 2018). Here, Plaintiff requests a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order 

after the Court has already dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Mem. 

Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. And Plaintiff offers no plausible explanation why a subsequent 

Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order would be necessary or appropriate at this juncture. Under these 

circumstances, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s request for a voluntary dismissal order is 

warranted. 

Dated: November 9, 2021

 /s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Mellin

18944

1/13/98

Affirmed and Reversed in part
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 950 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 950

Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as a national day 
   of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United 
            States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2016

 Mr. Garrett submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of October 23 as a national day 
   of remembrance of the tragic 1983 terrorist bombing of the United 
            States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

Whereas the United States deployed members of the Armed Forces to Lebanon in 
        1982 as part of a multinational peacekeeping force;
Whereas early on the morning of October 23, 1983, a truck packed with explosives 
        detonated outside of a building at Beirut International Airport that 
        served as quarters for several hundred members of the United States 
        Armed Forces deployed as part of the peacekeeping force;
Whereas 241 members of the Armed Forces were killed in the blast;
Whereas the Americans killed included 220 Marines, members of the 1st Battalion, 
        8th Marines-Battalion Landing Team, which made October 23, 1983, the 
        deadliest day for the Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in 
        February 1945 during World War II;
Whereas, in addition to the Marine Corps casualties, 18 Navy sailors and three 
        Army soldiers were killed, and more than 100 other members of the Armed 
        Forces were injured;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces from 39 States and Puerto Rico died while 
        serving in Beirut, Lebanon, from 1982 to 1984;
Whereas, on the same day as the bombing of the Marine Corps Barracks, another 
        suicide bomber killed 58 French paratroopers housed at another building 
        in Beirut; and
Whereas it is fitting and proper that the events of October 23, 1983, and the 
        members of the United States Armed Forces who died in Beirut on that day 
        are recognized through the establishment of a national remembrance day 
        on October 23: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of a national day of 
        remembrance for members of the United States Armed Forces who 
        were killed or injured by the terrorist attack on the United 
        States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, on October 23, 
        1983; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to support 
        and participate in appropriate ceremonies, programs, and other 
        activities in observance of such a national day of remembrance.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021044EN.01004601.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Deza v Commission

(Case T-638/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Environment - Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures - Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2021/C 44/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, S. Saez Moreno and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, R. Lindenthal and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.

---
No. 02-678 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2003 MT 161N CRAIG HUNTER CRAIN, Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-01-536(A) The Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Craig Hunter Crain, Pro Se , Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on Briefs: May 22, 2003 Decided: June 10, 2003 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. ¶2 The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dismissed Craig Hunter Crain's pro se petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Crain appeals. We affirm. ¶3 Crain argues on appeal that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain the sentence he would receive and that the District Court erred in failing to allow him to amend his petition for postconviction relief by attaching his mother's affidavit in support of his claim that part of his sentence should be suspended. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to our Order dated February 11, 2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for memorandum opinions. The issue is clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court has correctly interpreted. The sentence the trial court imposed on Crain was in conformity with Crain's plea agreement and Crain has established no legal justification for allowing him to avoid that agreement. We hold the District Court did not err in dismissing Crain's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing and without granting Crain's request to be allowed to amend the petition by adding his mother's affidavit.3 ¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY We concur: /S/ JIM RICE /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
Motion Denied and Order filed July 19, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00537-CV

____________

STOCKDICK LAND COMPANY, STEPHEN N. RINER, AND WADE A. 

RINER, Appellants

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, 

AND CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-60974A

ORDER

The combined appellee’s and cross-appellant’s brief was originally due

April 5, 2018. We granted extensions of time to file the combined appellee’s and 

cross-appellant’s brief until July 20, 2018. When we granted the final extension, 

we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. On July 13, 2018, counsel filed a further request for extension of 
time to file the combined appellee’s and cross-appellant’s brief. We deny the 

request and issue the following order.

We order appellee/cross-appellant to file a brief with the clerk of this court 

on or before August 20, 2018. If appellee/cross-appellant does not timely file the 

brief as ordered, the court will dismiss the cross-appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.
12/25/2B10 13:3B ei&32S4106 SAD PAGE Q2/0?. 

& 

U.S- Departmeni 

of Transportation 

F^ddral Aviation 

Administration 

.•:AMSPORTAT!ON 

• ..ALT OPERATIONS 

M i ntC ?"1 A ^M 8 

Small Airplane Directorate 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

•~.:.zn o ^, 

Mr. Todd Pogue 

Design;T)rafting 

Aviation Fabricators, Inc., AVFAB 

S05 North Fourth Street 

aintcn,MO 64735 

Dear Mr. Pogue: 

We are enclosing a denial of your petition submitted on April 4, 2008, requesting exemption 

from the requirements of § 23.815 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

proposed exemption would have permitted Aviation Fabricators to install Beechcraft Aft 

Jump Seat Kits in Beechcraft model B300 aircraft with a wide back executive scat 

configuration. If you have ajny questions, please contact Mr. Les Taylor at the above 

address or call him on 816-329-4134. 

Sincerely, 

Earl Lawrence 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Serx'ice 

Enclosure
J

- S04013

- 15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellant

v.

DARRYL GREGORY STEWART,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 840 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 14, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 67

- CR

- 0004973

- 2013

BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 07, 2015

I concur in the result. I write separately to stress that, as the author

of the Musau opinion, I remain of the view that the issue resolved ther ein

was properly decided.

Judge Bowes and Judge Allen Do Not Join
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 Justice

###### Parole Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, December 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.

# PLACE:

U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of September 7, 2023, Quarterly Meeting Minutes.

2. Updates since September Quarterly Meeting from the Acting Chairman, Commissioner, Acting Chief of Staff/Case Operations Administrator, Case Services Administrator, Executive Officer, and General Counsel.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Jacquelyn Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7010.

      ( print page 86158)    
Dated: December 7, 2023. 

Patricia K. Cushwa,

Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-27276 Filed 12-8-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1047 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1047

To require the Secretary of Energy to review rulemaking proceedings of 
other Federal agencies for the potential to cause an adverse effect on 
   the cost, time, or difficulty of complying with energy efficiency 
                 regulations, guidelines, or standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2015

 Mr. Alexander introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Energy to review rulemaking proceedings of 
other Federal agencies for the potential to cause an adverse effect on 
   the cost, time, or difficulty of complying with energy efficiency 
                 regulations, guidelines, or standards.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF RULEMAKING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy (referred to in this Act 
as the ``Secretary'') shall review the rulemaking proceedings of other 
Federal agencies that are pending on or after the date of enactment of 
this Act for the potential to cause an adverse effect on the cost 
(whether short-term or long-term), time, or difficulty of complying 
with current or proposed energy efficiency regulations, guidelines, or 
standards of the Department of Energy.
    (b) Consultation.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall consult with the head 
        of each relevant Federal agency to identify any areas of 
        conflict or overlap between a proposed or final regulation, 
        guideline, or standard of the Department of Energy and a 
        proposed or final regulation, guideline, or standard of that 
        relevant Federal agency.
            (2) Public input.--The Secretary shall seek public input on 
        any conflicts or overlaps identified under paragraph (1).
    (c) Resolution of Conflict.--For cases in which a conflicting or 
overlapping proposed regulation, guideline, or standard has been 
identified under subsection (b), prior to finalizing the rulemaking, 
the Secretary shall work with the head of the relevant Federal agency 
and the public, including small businesses, to resolve the conflict or 
overlap, in order to ensure that the regulatory conflict or overlap 
does not pose an undue compliance burden on the regulated persons.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10598]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7866]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``American Encounters: Thomas Cole and the American 
Landscape''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``American Encounters: Thomas Cole and the 
American Landscape,'' imported from abroad by the High Museum of Art 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at The Crystal Bridges Museum of 
American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas from on or about May 12 until on 
or about August 13, 2012; the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Georgia 
from on or about September 22, 2012 until on or about January 6, 2013; 
and possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined; is 
in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 27, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-10598 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
# C_2018399EN.01004101.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/41

---

Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

(Case T-518/18)

(2018/C 399/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials;

| — | annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017;

| — | order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision.

---