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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3031 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3031

              To prohibit funding to the Voice of America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2015

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To prohibit funding to the Voice of America.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING THE VOICE OF AMERICA.

    No funds available to the Department of State or any other 
department or agency may be used to provide contributions directly or 
indirectly to the Voice of America.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.3  


 
 

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED
  International Employee Stock Purchase Plan
  Change Form    
    


Please print and complete all information below:  



	Full name:	 	 	 	 	Badge #:	 	 
	 	
	 	 	 	

	 	Last	First	M	 	 	 	 





	Home Address:	 	 
	 	 	

	


	







	

Social Security Number:	

 	

 	

Date of Hire:	
 	

 
	 	
	 	 	








SECTION I—ELECTION  


Change Payroll Deduction Percentage:  


o
I hereby authorize Microchip Technology Incorporated to change my current deduction percentage to the
following: 


CIRCLE
ONE:    1%    2%    3%    4%    5%    6%    7%    8%    9%
    10%  





SECTION II—BENEFICIARY  



	Beneficiary(ies)—List additional beneficiaries on back	 	Relationship of Beneficiary(ies)
	

 	
 	

 
	
	 	

	

 	
 	

 
	
	 	

	

 	
 	

 
	
	 	








SECTION III—WITHDRAW FROM THE EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (check one)  


o
Stop my contributions and purchase the Microchip Technology Incorporated shares on the next purchase date. 


o Stop my contributions and refund my payroll Employee Stock Purchase Plan deductions collected. 



	

 Signature of Employee	
 	

 Date













QuickLinks


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED International Employee Stock Purchase Plan Change Form
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1222

HILTON LAWRENCE BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA98-4149-CCB)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hilton Lawrence Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Hilton Lawrence Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994).

Because Brown may be able to save this action by amending his

complaint, the district court’s order is not an appealable final

order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice

is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the dismissal

clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its

defects). We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8221

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BREON LEE MAYO,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-00116-JBF-FBS-1

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Breon Lee Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Breon Lee Mayo appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and agree with 

the district court’s conclusion that Mayo was not eligible for a 

sentence reduction because he was found responsible for more 

than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. United States v. Mayo, No. 2:06-cr00116-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2009 & entered 

Dec. 2, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2022129EN.01001401.xml

| 22.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma

(2022/C 129/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Min Aung Hlaing (No 15), Mr. Myint Swe (No 16), Mr. Soe Win (No 17), Mr. Mya Tun Oo (No 20), Mr Maung Maung Kyaw (No 23), U Chit Naing (No 35), Mr. Soe Htut (No 36), Mr. Tun Tun Naung (No 37) and Mr. Win Shein (No 38), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Myanmar/Burma.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with a new statement of reasons. These persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, by 29 March 2022, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(2)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

---
#### WOOD v. RICHEY.

No. 1725.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 19, 1936.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1936.

*236Allen & Allen, of Hamilton, for appellant.

H. E. Chesley, of Hamilton, and Geo. W. Barcus, of Waco, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.'

This suit was.brought by Elmer Richey against L. O. Wood in trespass to try title to recover a house and lot in the city of Hamilton. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

In 1929, for a recited consideration of $545, Wood and his wife conveyed the property in question to Richey by general warranty deed. As a matter of fact, Richey paid off a vendor’s lien note against the property in the sum of $320 and paid a personal obligation of $225 owing by Wood as principal and Richey as surety to a local bank. It was Wood’s contention that the conveyance was intended as a mortgage to secure the payment of the money so advanced by Richey. Both Wood and his wife gave testimony in support of this contention. It was Richey’s contention that the transaction was a conditional sale. He testified, in substance, that at the time of the execution of the deed it was understood that he was to rent the property to Wood at $10 per month, and that Wood should have the right to repurchase it at any time within two years by paying Richey the amount of the purchase price ($545), together with any amount necessarily expended by Richey for repairs; and that Wood remained in possession and paid rent at the stipulated price pf $10 per month until some time in 1932, at which time he ceased paying rent.

The warranty deed appeared on its face to evidence an outright sale of the property and was sufficient to place on Wood the burden of proving that it was intended as a mortgage. The evidence on the issue as tó whether it was intended as ■a mortgage or as a conditional sale was conflicting, and the trial court having re•solved that doubt in favor of the plaintiff Richey, we are bound thereby. Miller v. Yturria, 69 Tex. 549, 7 S.W. 206; Cochrane v. Wilson, 106 Tex. 180, 160 S.W. 593; Young v. Blain (Tex.Com.App.) 245 S.W. 65; Knox v. Brown (Tex.Com.App.) 16 S.W(2d) 262; Mann v. Wright (Tex.Civ.App.) 269 S.W. 222; Sisk v. Randon, 123 Tex. 326, 70 S.W(2d) 689; Brannon v. Gartman (Tex.Com.App.) 288 S.W. 817.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERIN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


In
connection with the quarterly report of New Century Equity Holdings Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Parris H. Holmes,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge that:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) | The Form 10-Q report for the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, filed
               with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2003, 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 Form 10-Q report for the three and six months
               ended June 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
               condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By:  /s/   PARRIS H. HOLMES, JR. 
      
Parris H. Holmes, Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Chief Executive Officer |  | Date: August 13, 2003
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------

|
|
# C_2023203EN.01001201.xml

| 9.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/12

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.103967

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 203/11)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.103967 |
| Member State | Bulgaria |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | RRF Bulgaria — Support for the installation of ERTMS equipment in zero-emission rolling stock |
| Legal basis | 1. | Decree 157 of the Council of Ministers of 7 March 2022; 2. Decree 114 of the Council of Ministers of 8 June 2022; 3. Order No. RD-08-496 of 29 September 2022 of the Minister of Transport and Communications; 4. Regulation H-10 of 23 November 2018; 5. Administrative Procedure Code; 6. Public Procurement Act; 7. State Aid Act. |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.5.2023

Aid number

SA.103967

Member State

Bulgaria

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

RRF Bulgaria — Support for the installation of ERTMS equipment in zero-emission rolling stock

Legal basis

1.

Decree 157 of the Council of Ministers of 7 March 2022; 2. Decree 114 of the Council of Ministers of 8 June 2022; 3. Order No. RD-08-496 of 29 September 2022 of the Minister of Transport and Communications; 4. Regulation H-10 of 23 November 2018; 5. Administrative Procedure Code; 6. Public Procurement Act; 7. State Aid Act.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Coordination of transport

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 63 000 000 BGN

Intensity

50,0  %

Duration

8.5.2023 — 30.4.2026

Economic sectors

Passenger rail transport, interurban, Freight rail transport

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministry of Transport and Communications |
| --- |
| 9, Dyakon Ignatiy str. Sofia 1000 |

Ministry of Transport and Communications

9, Dyakon Ignatiy str. Sofia 1000

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
#### SWOR v. STATE.

NO. 15584.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

E. S. Jones, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for aggravated assault; punishment being a fine of $25.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. .The indictment appears regular on its face. "In this condition of the record nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERTRAM MCRAE, a/k/a Scott,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-162-A, CA-95-1122-AM)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bertram McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Quincy Leon Ollison, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. McRae, Nos. CR-91-162-A;

CA-95-1122-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Revised 6/30/05

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On [DATE] and [DATE], we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:

DELIVERED:

	COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.

	APPELLANT

	V.

	APPELLEE

	------------

	FROM THE COURT OF  COUNTYNO. 2-09-181   -        -CV

AnNdDrReE JaAcCqQuUeEsS KeElLlLyY	APPELLANT	

	V.

AnNdDrReEaA WaAtTsSoOnN KeElLlLyY	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 324TH         DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT            COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On June 10, 2009 ___________ and June 24, 2009__________, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 75[or $175 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $1275 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court'’s order of Auaugusgust 28, 2007July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d)43.4..

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:    WALERKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.K MCCOY

DELIVERED:  July 2230, 2009
# C_2023193EN.01000101.xml

| 1.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10941 – ENI / SONATRACH / EQUINOR / IN SALAH JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 193/01)

On 2 December 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10941. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10941. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15

- 11902

- GAO

RICHARD MARTIN, Plaintiff,

v.
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Defendant

.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15

- 12328

- GAO

RICHARD MARTIN, Plaintiff,

v.
CORE SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

ORDER April 20 , 2016

O’TOOLE, D.J.

In these two related actions , Richard Martin claims that while he was standing in the lobby
of a McDonald’s restaurant in Washington, D.C., Deandre A. Harris, a special police officer
employed by Core Security Solutions, Inc., harassed him, ordered him to leave the restaurant,

assaulted him despite his compliance with Harris’s directive, and transferred him to the custody of
the local police department which fal sely charged him with assaulting a police officer and kept
him in custody overnight. 1

1 Martin’s related suit against Harris was dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Martin v. Harris , C.A. 15

- 12329

- GAO (D. Mass. Mar. 22, 2016), ECF #20.2 By separate motions, McDonald ’ s and Core Security Solutions argu e that Massachusetts
is not the proper venue for these actions

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Court agrees. Th e events
giving rise to Martin’s claims occurred exclusively in Washington, D.C. Core Security Solutions
appears to be a resident of Maryland, just outside of Washington
, D.C., and appears to have no
presence within this District. Furthermore, a lthough Martin lives in Massachusetts, the remaining
relevant witnesses, such as employees and patrons of McDonald ’ s and members of the Metro
Police Department, are likely to live in the Washington, D.C. area. Similarly, any relevant

documents are likely to be loc ated there.
Consequently, the defendants’ motions, insofar as they request a transfer of venue , are
GRANTED, and the case s are TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia. See id. § 1406(a).

It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                       554
<INVENTORY>                                      1,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,251
<PP&E>                                          17,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,780
<SALES>                                         39,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,435
<CGS>                                           22,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   502
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (236)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.17)
        


</TABLE>