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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4301 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4301

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, as the ``J. Elliott 
                    Williams Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. J. ELLIOTT WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Elliott Williams Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``J. Elliott 
Williams Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

312 KA 12-01054 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JUSTIN REID, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), rendered June 1, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in the decision at suppression court.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4301 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 458
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4301

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2018

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

                             June 14, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, as the ``J. 
                Elliott Williams Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. J. ELLIOTT WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Elliott Williams Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``J. Elliott 
Williams Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 458

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4301

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 201 Tom Hall Street in Fort Mill, South Carolina, as the ``J. 
                Elliott Williams Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 14, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00746-CR

Frederick FLETCHER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR8480

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2016

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Frederick Fletcher has filed a notice of appeal, seeking review of the trial court’s 

denial of his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Immediate Release, Reinstatement 

of Prior Bond Amount, or Setting of Bond Hearing. The trial court denied appellant’s application 

on May 24, 2016. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until October 31, 2016. Appellant’s 

notice of appeal, filed five months after the trial court’s order was signed, appears to be untimely 

filed.
04-16-00746-CR

- 2 -

Therefore, we ordered appellant to show cause on or before December 8, 2016 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. We dismiss 

this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Exhibit 32.1

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


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of FORESIGHT  SPECIALISTS  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: November 10, 2005                               Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
NO. 07-02-0211-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 28, 2002

______________________________ EX PARTE ROBERT RORY HOHN

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 87,717-E; H ONORABLE ABE LO PEZ, JUDGE

__________________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Relator Robert Ror

y Hohn filed a timely

pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s order of dismissal dated April 24, 200 2. However, he has now filed a motion to dismiss t he appeal, whi ch he has persona lly si gned. Because the m otion to dismis s meets the req uirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a), it

must be and here by is granted. Having dismissed the appeal at2

relator’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate w ill issu e forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish .
# C_2012109EN.01001102.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/11

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Grasso v Commission

(Case T-319/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Setting of TACs for 2008 - Act of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)

2012/C 109/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Grasso (Catania, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
#### Leo Kirshenbaum, Appellant, *v.*Irwin Berson, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 25, 1959.

*Louis Dubin*for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Tenant is not entitled to recover for the expense of the exterminator service which he voluntarily incurred *(Perlmutter*v. *Timely Toys,*8 A D 2d 834; *Davar Holdings*v. *Cohen,*255 App. Div. 445, affd. 280 N. Y. 828; *Emigrant Ind. Sav. Bank*v. *108 W. 49th St. Corp.,*255 App. Div. 570).

The final order should be unanimously modified upon the law and facts by increasing landlord’s recovery to $63.67, with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified affirmed, without costs on this appeal to either party.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Final order modified, etc.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                       LANDRY'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.
 
         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE--DILUTED
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                1998        1997        1996
                                             ----------  ----------- ----------
<S>                                          <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income (Loss)........................... $ (329,578) $27,430,044 $1,505,573
                                             ==========  =========== ==========
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding.. 29,400,000   25,518,000 23,360,000
Common Stock Equivalents--Stock Options
 (Diluted)..................................    500,000    1,082,000    740,000
                                             ----------  ----------- ----------
Weighted Average Common and Common
 Equivalent Shares Outstanding--(Diluted)... 29,900,000   26,600,000 24,100,000
                                             ==========  =========== ==========
Net Income (Loss) Per Share-(Diluted)....... $    (0.01) $      1.03 $     0.06
                                             ==========  =========== ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of  A J&J PHARMA CORPORATION,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin Ericksteen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






/s/ Kevin
Ericksteen


Kevin
Ericksteen


Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




Date: September
18, 2008
# C_2018341EN.01000901.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.

(Case C-502/18)

(2018/C 341/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CS, DR, EQ, FP, GO, HN, IM, JL, KK, LJ, MI

Defendant: České aerolinie a.s.

Question referred

Is there an obligation on a Community carrier to pay compensation to passengers under Article 3(5), second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) where the Community carrier as the contractual carrier operated the first leg of a flight with a stopover at an airport in a non-Member State, from which, under a code sharing agreement, a carrier which is not a Community carrier operated the second leg of the flight and there was a delay of more than three hours in the arrival at the final destination airport which arose exclusively in the second leg of the flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41457 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ISMAEL TORRES-FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1386-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal c ase, I smael Torres-Figueroa raises

an argument t hat he concedes is foreclosed b y United States v. Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 541, 562 n .28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), p etition for cert. filed (June 6, 2013) (No. 1 2-10695), in which t his court concluded t ha t t he g eneric, contemporary definition of “ sex u al abuse of a minor” does not i nclude the age-differential requirement that T orres-Figueroa asserts is required. Th e appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and t h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41457 Document: 00512347102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 – Ilhan v Staatssecretaris van Financiën**

**(Case C-42/08)**

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom to provide services – Articles 49 EC to 55 EC – Motor vehicles – Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State – Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Arts 49 EC to 55 EC) (see para. 25, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag – Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC – National legislation providing for the imposition of a registration tax on first use of a vehicle on the national road network irrespective of the period of use of that network – Liability to tax of a person established in that Member State who has leased a vehicle registered in another Member State and intended for use essentially in the first Member State for business and private purposes for a period of three years. |

**Operative part**

Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude the application of national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue
of which a person, residing or established in a Member State, who uses – primarily in that Member State – a motor vehicle
registered and leased in another Member State, must, on first use of that vehicle on the road network of the first Member
State, pay a tax which is calculated without taking into account the duration of the leasing agreement for that vehicle or
the length of time that vehicle will be used on that road network.
# C_2008142EN.01001801.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/18

---

Action brought on 7 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-142/08)

(2008/C 142/28)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/39/EC expired on 31 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1-44.

1

---
# C_2009267EN.01008401.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Schell v Commission

(Case F-36/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Allocation of promotion points by Directors-General - 2007 promotion procedure)

2009/C 267/151

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F.Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment of the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and annulment of his 2007 promotion report

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Schell to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Schell to pay all of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7/6/2008, p. 40.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel COSIMO DIMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1823

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 1, 1976.

Curtis B. Dyer (Court-appointed), Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, George A. Kelt, Jr., Robert Berg, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et*al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Cosimo Dimas appeals from his conviction for possession of 285 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

*1302Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the search and seizure and further contends that he was not properly identified in court as the person charged in the indictment.

The testimony at trial established the following. At approximately 9:45 p. m. on July 16, 1973, defendant approached a border patrol checkpoint south of Falfurrias, Texas, on U. S. Highway 281. He was driving a red GTO Pontiac, drawing a horse trailer, and traveling approximately 60 miles an hour. The Border Patrol agent on duty attempted to flag down defendant, but the vehicle continued through the checkpoint, whereupon the agent got into a marked border patrol car and with lights flashing started in pursuit. Defendant pulled to the side of the highway approximately 100 yards from the checkpoint, alighted from his vehicle, and walked back toward the checkpoint. The agent drove over to the GTO and by the use of a flashlight he could see a light load of .hay in the trailer in front of which were two 50-gallon barrels. The concealment of aliens beneath hay was common in the area. In an attempt to search the hay for aliens, the agent moved one of the barrels causing its lid to slip off thereby exposing bricks of marijuana.

The Falfurrias checkpoint is a permanent checkpoint. *United States v. Torres,*5 Cir., 1975, 537 F.2d 1299 [No. 76-2229, decided this day]; *see also United States v. Cantu,*5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 387. Routine stops at permanent checkpoints do not offend the Fourth Amendment, *United States*v. *Martinez-Fuerte,*- U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d - (1976); and a subsequent search of the vehicle stopped is justified where probable cause exists, *United States v. Ortiz,*422 U.S. 891, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975). Defendant’s unusual behavior in traveling through the well-marked checkpoint at a high rate of speed, despite the warning signals and the attempts of the Border Patrol agent to stop him, together with the agent’s experience with vehicles carrying hay, furnished the requisite probable cause.

Appellant’s additional contention that he was not identified as the person charged in the indictment is without merit.

AFFIRMED.