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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1091 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1091

              For the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALFREDO PLASCENCIA LOPEZ.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Alfredo 
Plascencia Lopez shall be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant 
visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
Alfredo Plascencia Lopez shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall 
apply only if the application for issuance of immigrant visas or the 
application for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 
within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
birth of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
of the country of birth of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez under section 
202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
    (e) PAYGO.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be 
determined by reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary 
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in 
the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 
vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009032EN.01003601.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/36

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — GEMA v Commission

(Case T-410/08 R)

(Application for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2009/C 32/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and I. Brinker, lawyers, assisted by Professor J. Schwarze)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, O. Weber and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
#### Oren D. MORGAN, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Respondent.

No. A-13007.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 7, 1961.

Oren D. Morgan, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

The petitioner Oren D. Morgan, filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on the second day of February, 1961 alleging three assignments of error committed in his trial in the Superior Court of Garfield County on December 1, 1955. The writ was denied by this Court on the twenty-second day of March, 1961 in Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 733. Petitioner then filed a document styled “Motion for Review” in this Court on the seventeenth day of May, 1961 requesting this Court to review his original application.

In the opinion above referred to the same issues as are raised in this motion for review were raised and the same were fully and completely dealt with by this Court. ■ We have repeatedly held that where the Court of Criminal Appeals has denied application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain subsequent applications for such writ on the same grounds and facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether presented then or not. See Hibbs v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 344 P.2d 672 and cases cited therein.

The motion to dismiss this proceeding, because the same presents upon its face no matters of merit and nothing which has not already been adjudicated against petitioner by this Court, filed by the Attorney General, is sustained and the motion is denied.

NIX, P. J., arid BRETT, J.,’concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              34
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      253
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   583
<PP&E>                                             246
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (326)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,372
<SALES>                                          1,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,848
<CGS>                                            1,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     43
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION 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 Alliance Bancshares California (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Curtis S. Reis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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/    CURTIS S. REISPresident and Chief Executive Officer





Date: August 13, 2002




E-1
#### Harold L. Meyers, Plaintiff, *v.*Abraham Teitelbaum et al., Doing Business as Fortune Lamp Co., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

October 15, 1959.

*1081
      *Morton L. Kimmelman*for plaintiff.

*I. J. Kulick*for defendants.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Motion to amend complaint for breach of an oral agreement to include an additional cause based on *quantum meruit.*

Plaintiff, a lamp stylist, originally alleged an oral agreement with the defendants, lamp manufacturers, pursuant to which he claims to be entitled to a percentage of defendants’ net sales for designing a line of modern lamps and an exclusive option to become the sole national sales distributor for a percentage of the gross sales. He further alleged a breach of the oral agreement and that there is due and owing to him the sum of $42,575.

Plaintiff now seeks to amend the complaint in order to add a second cause based on *quantum meruit,*for the fair and reasonable value of his services and to increase the amount of damages. Defendants having interposed the defense that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds, contend that the plaintiff may not add the *quantum meruit*theory or recover thereon in the event he is not entitled to recover on his cause for breach of contract — a contention which is without merit *(Smith*v. *Kilpatrick,*305 N. Y. 66).

Amendments of pleadings are liberally allowed to correct a mistake, omission, irregularity or defect in the pleadings. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105.) The parties may so shape their pleadings as to litigate all questions affecting their rights where none of them is materially prejudiced *(Newman*v. *Goldberg,*250 App. Div. 431) and, in the absence of prejudice, amendment as to the *ad damnum*is permissible. *(Nathanson*v. *Lutheran Hosp. Assn.,*3 Misc 2d 540.)

The rights of the defendants not being materially affected or prejudiced by the proposed amendment, the motion is granted; the proposed amended complaint to be served within 5 days following service of a copy of an order herein with notice of entry, the defendants shall serve their amended answer within 20 days thereafter.

Settle order on notice.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00034

- CV

Julio M. AGUILERA

, Appellant

v.

Delmis S. AGUILERA

, Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 16322

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On February 26 , 2014, we abated and remanded the appeal to the trial court with

instructions to enter findings pursuant to section 154.130(b) of the Texas Family Code. On

March 28 , 2014, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial

court’s findings. Accordingly, the appeal is REINSTATED on the court’s docket. The cause is

set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this Court on April 23, 2014 , before a

panel of Justice Angelini, Justice Barnard, and Justice Martinez.

It is so ORDERED on April 2, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2009113EN.01001101.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-143/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/73/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

2009/C 113/20

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to give effect to Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CARSON of Indiana:
       H.R. 6256.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Sec. 8, clause 1.
```
# C_2008092EN.01003702.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/37

---

Appeal brought on 5 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06, Dittert v Commission

Dittert

Commission

(Case T-51/08 P)

(2008/C 92/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

Dittert

Commission

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of 22 November 2007 in Case F-109/06 Dittert v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision allocating to the applicant at first instance a number of priority points insufficient for him to be promoted in promotion year 2005 and its decision finalising the list of officials promoted during that promotion year inasmuch as it does not include the applicant's name.

Dittert

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment.

Firstly, the Commission submits that the CST wrongly applied Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that it attributed excessive importance to the involvement of the Director General in the procedure for allocating points, thus restricting unduly the discretion of the Appointing Authority following the finding that the lack of such involvement constituted a substantial procedural error.

Secondly, the Commission submits that the CST infringed the jurisdiction of the Appointing Authority in breach of Article 45 of the Regulations and exceeded its powers of judicial control by addressing an instruction to the Appointing Authority.

Thirdly, the Commission alleges that the CST failed to give sufficient reasons for the finding that the allocation to the applicant at first instance of a certain number of priority points by the Promotion Committee did not constitute an adequate remedy for the procedural error classified by the Tribunal as ‘substantial’ consisting in the lack of involvement of the Director General. Moreover, it claims that the CST based the contested judgment on a distortion of the contents of minutes of a meeting of the Promotion Committee.

---
# C_2008313EN.01003602.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/36

---

Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

(Case T-385/08)

(2008/C 313/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, A. Nordemann and A. Dustmann)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision R 1734/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008, together with the decision of the examiner of 25 September 2007 to the extent that protection was refused for the application for Community trade mark 4829321 for goods ‘leather goods included in Class 18; bags’ in Class 18 and ‘foodstuffs for animals and drinks for domestic animals’ in Class 31; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision R 1734/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008, together with the decision of the examiner of 25 September 2007 to the extent that protection was refused for the application for Community trade mark 4829321 for goods ‘leather goods included in Class 18; bags’ in Class 18 and ‘foodstuffs for animals and drinks for domestic animals’ in Class 31;

| — | authorise the publication of the application for the registration of Community trade mark 4829321 in respect of those goods as well and |
| --- | --- |

—

authorise the publication of the application for the registration of Community trade mark 4829321 in respect of those goods as well and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a dog for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 31 — Application No 4 829 321

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision as regards ‘clothing, footwear and headgear; belts’ in Class 25

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulatin No 40/94, as the mark applied for is neither directly nor exclusively descriptive, and has a sufficiently distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2008209EN.01005501.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/55

---

Action brought on 12 May 2008 — Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos v Commission

(Case T-184/08)

(2008/C 209/99)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos (Rominha, Alvaiázere, Portugal) (represented by A. Marques Fernandes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the European Commission's decision, adopted in connection with Case 89 0488 P1, notified to the applicant on 3 March 2008, deciding that the applicant must be required to repay the sum of EUR 25 485,00, equivalent to PTE 5 109 287. |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the European Commission's decision, adopted in connection with Case 89 0488 P1, notified to the applicant on 3 March 2008, deciding that the applicant must be required to repay the sum of EUR 25 485,00, equivalent to PTE 5 109 287.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The training programme was carried out in full.

The auditors used criteria far removed from reality and for reasons quite foreign to the applicant they treated costs as ineligible.

All the expenditure ought to have been regarded as eligible and taken into consideration in the final account.

After the lapse of twenty years, repayment of any amount is flagrant injustice and runs counter to the fundamental principles of proportionality and of certainty for citizens before the law and the institutions.

---