alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4569 

AN ACT 

To require counterterrorism information sharing 

coordination, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4569 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Counterterrorism In3 formation Sharing Improvement Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING CO5 ORDINATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President, acting though the 

7 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall ensure that, for 

8 counterterrorism purposes, the Department of the Home9 land Security has access to biographic and biometric data 

10 collected by the United States Government on individuals 

11 associated with a terrorist organization. 

12 (b) COORDINATION.—The President shall direct the 

13 heads of relevant Federal departments and agencies to co14 ordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security to mini15 mize and overcome any administrative, technical, capacity, 

16 or classification challenges to carrying out subsection (a). 

17 (c) PROTECTIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland Se18 curity shall ensure that all relevant laws, rules, and proce19 dures, including the section 552(a) of title 5, United 

20 States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ 

21 or the ‘‘Privacy Act of 1974’’), regarding classification lev22 els and civil rights and civil liberties are followed while 

23 seeking to carry out subsection (a). 

24 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.— 

25 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

26 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
3 

•HR 4569 EH

1 of Homeland Security shall, consistent with the pro2 tection of classified information, submit to the Com3 mittee on Homeland Security of the House of Rep4 resentatives and the Committee on Homeland Secu5 rity and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 

6 on the implementation of this section. 

7 (2) CONTENTS.—The report required under 

8 paragraph (1) shall include a description of how the 

9 data referred to in subsection (a) is utilized for De10 partment of Homeland Security screening and vet11 ting purposes and any challenges associated with in12 corporating such data into departmental screening 

13 and vetting systems. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4569 

AN ACT 

To require counterterrorism information sharing 

coordination, and for other purposes.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60701

Conference Calendar

__________________

RENE AUGUSTO RODRIGUEZ-ACEITUNO,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

A30 464 222

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Rodriguez-Aceituno (Rodriguez) petitions for review of

the summary dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

of his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his

application for relief from deportation pursuant to § 212(c) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rodriguez fails to

challenge the BIA's dismissal but instead challenges only the
No. 95-60701

-2-

IJ's decision. This court, however, "is authorized to review

only the order of the [BIA], not the decision of the immigration 

judge." Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.

1991). Because Rodriguez fails to present this court with the

only appealable issue, the propriety of the BIA's dismissal, his

petition is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
# C_2009205EN.01003801.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-114/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation - Lateness - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2009/C 205/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in the present case.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1846

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM A. AIVALIKLES,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Lynch, Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.

William Aivalikles on brief pro se.

Karen G. Gregory, Attorney, Tax Division, Department of

Justice, David English Carmack, Attorney, Tax Division, Department

of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, on

brief for appellee.

February 24, 2004
-2-

Per Curiam. William Aivalikles, an attorney acting

pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment

in favor of the government in this tax deficiency case brought

under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7403. In response to the government's

motion, which was supported with certified assessments for the

tax years in question, appellant offered only an affidavit

containing unspecific and unsubstantiated assertions that the

assessments overstated the amount of unpaid tax, which he

certified as "true to the best of [his] knowledge and belief."

The district court properly found the affidavit insufficient to

demonstrate any triable issue with regard to the correctness of

the tax deficiency assessments. See Perez v. Volvo Car Corp.,

247 F.3d 303, 318 (1st Cir. 2001); Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d

957, 960-61 (1st Cir. 1997). 

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
# C_2008022EN.01004802.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/48

---

Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)

(Case T-430/07)

(2008/C 22/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Montebello, S.A. (Montilla, Spain) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, M.I. Lehmann Novo, and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Montebello (limited company) (Guadalupe, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of OHIM's decision of 7 September 2007 in Case R 223/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of OHIM's decision of 7 September 2007 in Case R 223/2007-2;

| — | rejection of Community trade mark No 2.666.386; |
| --- | --- |

—

rejection of Community trade mark No 2.666.386;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Montebello (limited company)

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘MONTEBELLO Rhum Agricole’ (application No 2.266.386) for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘MONTEBELLO’ (No 1.148.196) for goods in Class 33.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division upheld and annulled.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
**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, 2007 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: December
      21, 2007
Exhibit 8.1



Significant Subsidiaries of Sociedad Química y Minera
de Chile S.A.



|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | Country of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|SQM Industrial S.A.                                   |  | Chile                   
|SQM Nitratos S.A.                                     |  | Chile                   
|SQM Salar S.A.                                        |  | Chile                   
|Minera Nueva Victoria S.A.                            |  | Chile                   
|Servicios Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. |  | Chile                   
|Soquimich Comercial S.A.                              |  | Chile                   
|SQM Potasios. S.A.                                    |  | Chile                   
|SQM North America Corp.                               |  | USA                     
|SQM Europe N.V.                                       |  | Belgium                 



For a complete list of foreign and domestic
subsidiaries see Note 2.5 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6176

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

EDWARD MOORE, JR., 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00007-BO-2; 5:12-cv-00416-BO) 

Submitted: June 16, 2014 Decided: July 9, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Edward Moore, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Epoch Biosciences, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-88909) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-73074 and 333-68068) on Form S-8 of Epoch
Biosciences, Inc. of our report dated January 18, 2002, relating to the balance
sheets of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Epoch
Biosciences, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP





Seattle, Washington
March 28, 2002
Source: Strengthening Economic Resilience in Appalachia, January 2019.

LEARN MORE: www.arc.gov/resilience

Case Studies in Economic Resilience

1

2

3

4

5

7 8

9

10

6

Chenango County, New York

moving multiple sectors forward

Dickinson County, Iowa

growing next generation leadership

Flathead County, Montana

cultivating entrepreneurship & 

resources for business startups

Fannin County, Georgia

identifying & growing assets in the 

community

Harrison County, West Virginia

building networks & fostering 

collaboration

Holmes County, Ohio

investing in infrastructure and 

manufacturing

Lee & Itawamba Counties, Mississippi

building networks & fostering 

collaboration

St. Clair County, Alabama

engaging the community over time

McKean County, Pennsylvania

moving multiple sectors forward for 

economic development

McCracken County, Kentucky

engaging the community over time

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 25, 2018

No. 04-18-00674-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.L., ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00631

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days from the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. The notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on September 19, 

2018. The court reporter’s record was thus due on October 1, 2018. On October 18, 2018, the 

court reporter filed a Notification of Late Record stating that she will be unable to file the 

reporter’s record until October 29, 2018. 

The notification of late record is NOTED. We ORDER the reporter’s record to be 

filed no later than October 29, 2018. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of 

this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN.

6.2. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,010,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,500
<INVENTORY>                                    210,054
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,820,705
<PP&E>                                       2,124,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                 562,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,358,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          859,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,498,973
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,358,582
<SALES>                                      6,623,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,037,257
<CGS>                                        7,419,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,040,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               687,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,468,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,468,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (627,682)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,468,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome McCants, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered April 25, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his.plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the evening of July 6, 1989, two police officers dressed in plain clothes and operating an unmarked police car drove to the intersection of Fourth Avenue and Fourth Street in the City of Mount Vernon in order to investigate a complaint of a man selling drugs at that location. While they were stopped at the intersection for a traffic light, they heard a voice cry out "five-o”, a slang term used to warn people of police presence in an area, and they then saw the defendant take a brown paper bag out of his pocket, drop it to the ground, and then walk away. The officers exited their car and, without saying anything to the defendant, walked immediately over to the *848bag which they picked up, opened and discovered numerous capsules of cocaine. At this point, one of the officers ran to catch up with the defendant and placed him under arrest.

Upon these facts, we find that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the bag and its contents. The hearing court correctly determined that the bag and its contents had been abandoned by the defendant when he discarded the bag and walked away *(see, People v Thomas,*161 AD2d 1167; *People v Kosciusko,*149 AD2d 620; *People v Chestnut,*91 AD2d 981). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the discarding of the bag was not in response to any unlawful police conduct since he discarded it before the officers even approached him *(see, People v Wade,*137 AD2d 638; *People v Williams,*123 AD2d 652). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2021481EN.01001101.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

(Case C-561/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Exceptions to that obligation - Criteria - Question on the interpretation of EU law raised by the parties to the national proceedings after the Court has given a preliminary ruling in those proceedings - Failure to state the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Partial inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)

(2021/C 481/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Consorzio Italian Management, Catania Multiservizi SpA

Defendant: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must comply with its obligation to bring before the Court of Justice a question concerning the interpretation of EU law that has been raised before it, unless it finds that that question is irrelevant or that the provision of EU law in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.

The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the characteristic features of EU law, the particular difficulties to which the interpretation of the latter gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the European Union.

Such a court or tribunal cannot be relieved of that obligation merely because it has already made a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling in the same national proceedings. However, it may refrain from referring to the Court a question for a preliminary ruling on grounds of inadmissibility specific to the procedure before that court or tribunal, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---