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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 915 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to Marcus 

Garvey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. 

JEFFRIES, Mr. LEWIS, and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to Marcus Garvey. 

Whereas Marcus Mosiah Garvey was born in St. Ann’s Bay, 

Jamaica, on August 17, 1887, and emigrated to the 

United States where he founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association; 

Whereas Marcus Garvey was the father of the largest African-American movement for human rights and economic 

self-sufficiency of all time, attracting millions of followers 

in the United States, the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, and Europe; 

Whereas Marcus Garvey’s philosophy inspired some of the 

world’s great Black leaders; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 915 IH 

Whereas leading a movement for economic independence 

among Black Americans, Marcus Garvey became the target of surveillance and harassment by United States Government law enforcement agencies; 

Whereas Marcus Garvey was prosecuted and convicted of 

mail fraud, imprisoned, and later, deported to Jamaica; 

Whereas the case against Marcus Garvey was politically motivated, the charges unsubstantiated, and his conviction 

unjust; 

Whereas millions of petitioners have appealed for his exoneration; 

Whereas Marcus Garvey is recognized as a national hero in 

his native Jamaica, and as a towering figure in nations 

around the world; and 

Whereas Marcus Garvey’s life and contributions to the 

United States should be recognized and appropriate steps 

taken to restore his name and reputation in this country: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) Marcus Garvey was innocent of the charges 

4 brought against him by the United States Govern5 ment; 

6 (2) Marcus Garvey was and should be recog7 nized internationally as a leader and thinker in the 

8 struggle for human rights; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 915 IH 

1 (3) the President should take appropriate meas2 ures within his power to clear Marcus Garvey’s good 

3 name. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2018436EN.01006101.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/61

---

Action brought on 9 September 2018 — ZE v Parliament

(Case T-603/18)

(2018/C 436/85)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ZE (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 25 September 2018 ordering that he be suspended from his duties until 31 October 2018, and any other connected measure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 25 September 2018 ordering that he be suspended from his duties until 31 October 2018, and any other connected measure.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of his right to be heard before the contested decision was taken against him; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of his right to be heard before the contested decision was taken against him;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of information collected by a method which infringes the right to good administration enshrined in Art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of information collected by a method which infringes the right to good administration enshrined in Art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality by the Secretary General, in so far he ordered the opening of an administrative investigation against the applicant and also adopted the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality by the Secretary General, in so far he ordered the opening of an administrative investigation against the applicant and also adopted the contested decision;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest breach of his right to privacy due to being prohibited from having access to his workplace and to his personal files; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest breach of his right to privacy due to being prohibited from having access to his workplace and to his personal files;

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and of the confidential nature of proceedings, having regard to statements made to the press by senior officials of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence and of the confidential nature of proceedings, having regard to statements made to the press by senior officials of the European Parliament.

---
# C_2020287EN.01001001.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — George Haswani v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-241/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Measures directed against leading businesspersons operating in Syria - List of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the appellant’s name - Action for annulment and compensation)

(2020/C 287/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: George Haswani (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet, L. Baumgart and A. Tizzano, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr George Haswani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
### NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1022 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES LICENSING, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,

v. THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, LLC, UPPER DECK DISTRIBUTION & SALES COMPANY, and UPPER DECK DISTRIBUTION & SALES COMPANY, LLC, Defendant/Cross Claimants-Appellees,
and PLAYOFF CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee,

v. ADRIAN GLUCK Cross Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no.

01-CV-1198, Chief Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.

ON MOTION


### ORDER The appellees move without opposition for a 31-day extension of time, until March 30, 2009, to file their briefs. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT



## MAR 0 4 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Date

cc: Gregory S. Dovel, Esq. Norman H. Zivin, Esq. Joseph R. Taylor, Esq. MAR 0 4 2009 JAN rlOtioriLY CLERK s20

2009-1022 2
#### Geo. M. MOHS, Guardian of the Estate of Caroline Schroeder, an incompetent person; Gus Hadwiger and Robert L. Hadwiger, and Gus Hadwiger and Robert L. Hadwiger, as Guardian ad litem for Caroline Schroeder, an incompetent person, Plaintiffs in Error, v. C. H. MAUNTEL, John B. Doolin, and Myrtle E. Mason, as Executrix of the Estate of Merritt C. Mason, Deceased, Defendants in Error.

No. 37735.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 17, 1958.

*476Hadwiger & Hadwiger, Alva, for plaintiffs in error.

Crowley & Musser, Enid, Mauntel & Doolin, Alva, by Jere G. Crowley, Enid, and John B. Doolin, Alva, for defendants in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

This is an attempted appeal by petition in error, with case made attached, from a judgment rendered by the trial court on September 10, 1956, in an action originally commenced by some of the heirs of Theodore Wagner, deceased, to partition a quarter section of the land of said decedent’s estate. After the overruling of the motion for new trial filed on behalf of the parties designated herein as plaintiffs in error, they gave notice of appeal, and, preliminary to the lodging of an appeal in this court, caused certain proceedings for that purpose to be had in the trial court, including settlement and signing of the case made by the judge of said court, on February 1st, 1957. The petition in error, with case made attached, was not filed in this court until March 8, 1957, which, as will be noticed, was more than twenty days after the settlement of the case made.

Our statute requires that: “All proceedings by case made for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within twenty (20) days from the date the case made is settled; * * *.” Tit. 12 O.S.Í955, Supp. § 972.

It is apparent from this provision of the statute, that this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment herein sought to be reversed. The present proceedings for that purpose are therefore hereby dismissed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

SIF/RA Worksheet

CVB-WI-0195 02

PEL Reviewer Manual Ch. 4.12.3

CVB-WI-PEL-REV

21 May 2021

CVB-Released
Ultra-High Radio Frequency Identification 

Demonstration Projects 

Executive Summary

August 2016

In FY 2014, USDA APHIS VS provided limited funds to support Ultra High Frequency (UHF)

demonstration projects through the administration of 8 cooperative agreements with the States of 

California/Hawaii (joint agreement), Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee 

and Wisconsin. The objective of these demonstration projects was to evaluate UHF technology to 

document its potential merit for the collection of official livestock identification and animal health 

information to support disease traceability and animal disease control programs. The expectation 

was that use of UHF technology would increase the efficiency and accuracy of collecting animal 

identification and animal health information by integrating electronic data capture solutions. 

Funding was awarded to projects that included cattle as the primary focus, targeting areas in the 

cattle industry that are most common or frequently practiced so that the outcomes would have 

the potential to impact a significant portion of the industry. Projects that spanned multiple states 

and multiple sectors of the cattle industry were encouraged.

The demonstration projects indicated that the UHF technology has certain advantages over low 

frequency RFID tags, in particular the read rate and read distance increase the potential of reading 

the animals’ official identification numbers at the speed of commerce. However, no RFID 

technology appears to be perfect for capturing animal identification information in all livestock 

environments. In certain cattle handling situations (working cattle in lockups or chutes, dairy 

parlors, etc.) UHF may have minimal, if any, advantages over LF technology. However, in 

management environments that require longer read distances, reading multiple animals at one 

time, etc., UHF technology has significant advantages, as the read distance for UHF technology is 

able to be adjusted to decrease read distance, whereas LF technology cannot be adjusted to 

significantly increase read distance. 

Overall the UHF tags and technology worked very well and as expected. Impediments to 

successful integration included utilizing the improper equipment for the production setting or 

environment, unfamiliarity with the equipment to ensure continued function at the speed of 

commerce, and lack of incorporation of appropriate software to achieve maximum benefit and 

efficiency of UHF technology. It is apparent that successful utilization of UHF tags will be driven by 

the industry for management and marketing purposes. The utilization of UHF technology is likely 

to advance and grow as more fine-tuning of the equipment and tags is achieved. Continued use of 

the technology by 14 of the 32 (44%) participants, two of which already used low frequency RFID, 

is a good indicator that investment in UHF technology is feasible in some environments.
<PAGE>


INTERLAND, INC.
EXHIBITS TO FORM 10-K

Exhibit 23.01


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No's. 333-96647, 333-10060, 333-102657) and S-8
(File No's. 033-63701, 333-42727, 333-94075, 333-41116, 333-62876, 333-69518,
333-109435) of Interland, Inc. (formerly Micron Electronics, Inc.) of our report
dated November 21, 2003 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
November 26, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.0


                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT






I, James A.  Cannavino,  Chief  Executive  Officer of Direct  Insite Corp.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that::

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
     March 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 result of operations of the Company.



Date: May 15, 2008





                                     /s/James A. Cannavino
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                        James A. Cannavino
                                        Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>


                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT




I, Michael J.  Beecher,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Direct  Insite Corp.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that::

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
     March 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: May 15, 2008
                                      /s/ Michael J. Beecher
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Michael J. Beecher
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### Harwood Pharmacal Co., Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*National Broadcasting Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 12, 1959.

• *Goudert Brothers*for National Broadcasting Co., Inc., and others, defendants.

*Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf $ Jones*for plaintiff.

Thomas A. Aurelio, J.

Defendants move for dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency, contending that the stated cause requires allegation of special damage and none is set forth. The action is in libel or disparagement of product without reference to the name of the fabricator. Plaintiff is the manufacturer of a product known as *‘ ‘*Snooze ’ ’. Defendants are charged with the statement: *“ ‘*Snooze ’, the new aid for sleep. Snooze is full of all kinds of habit-forming drugs. Nothing short of a hospital cure will make you stop taking Snooze. You’ll feel like a run-down hound dog and lose weight. ’ ’

The statement must be regarded as permitting ‘‘ the conclusion that the misrepresentations with respect to [“ Snooze ”] are of such a nature as to constitute a fraud upon the public, and that the manufacturer is guilty of fraud and deceit ” *(Drug Research Corp.*v. *Curtis Pub. Co.,*7 A D 2d 285, 287). Allegation of special damage: is not necessary ‘1 when the language is of so defamatory a nature as to directly affect credit and to *209occasion pecuniary injury” *(Reporters’ Assn.*v. *Sun Print. & Pub. Assn.,*186 N. Y. 437, 441). It is enough if the publication in its ordinary meaning was naturally and proximately injurious to the plaintiff and in that event impairment of credit and reputation is presumed *(O’Connell*v. *Press Pub. Co.,*214 N. Y. 352, 358; *Samson United Corp.*v. *Dover Mfg. Co.,*233 App. Div. 155). The motion is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                                  
|John A. Skolas                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2006
22450

#### State v. Wolf

Affirmed
# C_2020230EN.01002901.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-724/18 and T-184/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS - Earlier EU word mark AUREA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Correction of the Board of Appeal’s decision - Article 102 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. De Keersmaeker and W.-J. Cosemans, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought, in Case T-724/18, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2018 (Case R 814/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Avizel and Aurea Biolabs, and, in Case T-184/19, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 (Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)), correcting the decision of 11 September 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-724/18 and T-184/19 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Avizel SA to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Avizel SA to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 5, 2009

s0602 

# Order

June 5, 2009

138923

_____________ _______________ _____________ In re BLAKE SAMUEL COLLINS, Minor.

_____________ _______________ _____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 138923 COA: 288253 Wayne CC Family Division: 08-479017-NA MICHAEL FORREST FLETCHER, Respondent-Appellant,

and

CRYSTAL JEWELL CO LLINS and DEPLURI HARRIS, Respondents.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
20259

#### State v. Horton

Affirmed