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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 276 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 276

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to include a prohibition on 
the listing of a living nonnative species as a threatened species or an 
              endangered species, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2021

  Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Paul) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to include a prohibition on 
the listing of a living nonnative species as a threatened species or an 
              endangered species, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Saving America's Vulnerable and 
Endangered Species Act'' or the ``SAVES Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LISTING OF LIVING NONNATIVE SPECIES AS 
              THREATENED SPECIES OR ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    (a) Limitation.--The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 19. PROHIBITION ON LISTING OF LIVING NONNATIVE SPECIES AS 
              THREATENED SPECIES OR ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall 
not list under section 4(c) any living nonnative species.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 17 the following:

``Sec. 18. Annual cost analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
``Sec. 19. Prohibition on listing of living nonnative species as 
                            threatened species or endangered 
                            species.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 105 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2382 

To authorize the National Cyber Director to accept details from other elements of the Federal Government on nonreimbursable basis, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2021 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. PETERS, Mr. KING, and Mr. 

ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JULY 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To authorize the National Cyber Director to accept details 

from other elements of the Federal Government on nonreimbursable basis, 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, 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2382 PCS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL CYBER DIRECTOR 

2 TO ACCEPT DETAILS ON NONREIMBURSABLE 

3 BASIS. 

4 Section 1752(e) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 

6 (Public Law 116–283) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through 

8 (8) as subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively, 

9 and indenting such subparagraphs two ems to the 

10 right; 

11 (2) in the matter before subparagraph (A), as 

12 redesignated by paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘The Di13 rector may’’ and inserting the following: 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may’’; 

15 (3) in paragraph (1)— 

16 (A) as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 

17 redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (H) 

18 as subparagraphs (D) through (I), respectively; 

19 and 

20 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) 

21 the following new subparagraph (C): 

22 ‘‘(C) accept officers or employees of the 

23 United States or member of the Armed Forces 

24 on a detail from an element of the intelligence 

25 community or from another element of the Fed26 eral Government on a nonreimbursable basis, as 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2382 PCS

1 jointly agreed to by the heads of the receiving 

2 and detailing elements, for a period not to ex3 ceed three years;’’; and 

4 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(2) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING DE7 TAILS.—Paragraph (1)(C) shall not be construed to 

8 impose any limitation on any other authority for re9 imbursable or nonreimbursable details. A nonreim10 bursable detail made under such paragraph shall not 

11 be considered an augmentation of the appropriations 

12 of the receiving element of the Office of the National 

13 Cyber Director.’’. 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 105 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2382 

A BILL 

To authorize the National Cyber Director to accept 

purposes. ernment on nonreimbursable basis, and for other details from other elements of the Federal GovJULY 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with BILLS
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00293-CR 

MICHAEL COOK, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 70,564-D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding 

 

November 28, 2016 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Michael Cook filed a notice of appeal from his conviction of assault on 

a family or household member,

1

enhanced, and sentence of sixty-four years 

confinement. When the clerk’s record was filed, however, it did not contain the trial 

court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal as required by Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2016).
2

By letter dated October 5, 2016, we notified the trial court and the district clerk 

that the record did not contain the certification and asked that a certification be prepared 

by November 4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1. The letter instructed the district clerk to file a 

supplemental record within fifteen days after the certification was filed. On November 

21, the district clerk notified us that the certification remained outstanding.

Consequently, we now abate the appeal and remand this cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings. Appellate Rule 25.2(a)(2) requires a trial court to enter a 

certification of the defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or 

other appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Upon remand, the trial court shall 

utilize whatever means it finds necessary to secure a proper certification of appellant’s 

right of appeal in compliance with the rules. Once properly completed and executed,

the certification shall be filed and included in a supplemental clerk's record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 34.5(c)(2). The trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed 

with the Clerk of this Court by December 28, 2016.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Selected ConsolidatedFinancial Data” and to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-43716, 333-50579, 333-50581,333-50585, 333-53331, 333-62884, 333-65405, 333-104222,333-10614 and 333-121053) pertaining to the Restricted Stock andNonstatutory Stock Option Awards to Certain Employees, the Trammell CrowCompany Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, the Trammell Crow Company1997 Stock Option Plan, the Trammell Crow Company Long-Term Incentive Plan, asamended, the Trammell Crow Company Retirement Savings Plan, and RestrictedStock to Certain Employees of our reports dated March 14, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Trammell CrowCompany and Subsidiaries, Trammell Crow Company and Subsidiaries management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TrammellCrow Company and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004.
| /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP     |
|------------------------------------|
| Dallas, Texas  March 14, 2005 |

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment (this
“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of the Start Date (as defined in the Agreement)
by and between Bionik Laboratories Corp., a Delaware corporation, and Richard Russo, is made as of the 15th day of October,
2021, by and between the Company and the Employee (capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed
to those terms in the Agreement).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the
Employee are parties to the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the
Employee desire to amend the Agreement as more particularly set forth herein; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 6.6 of the
Agreement provides, in part, that no amendment to the Agreement shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and duly executed
by both of the parties thereto.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.        Amendments
to Agreement.


 


(a)       Section
2.3 of ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace “30%” with “40%”.


 


2.       Miscellaneous.


 


(a)       Except
as expressly set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


(b)       The
headings of the sections of this Amendment have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to be a part of
this Amendment.


 


(c)       This
Amendment, together with the Agreement, contain the entire agreement between the Company and the Employee with respect to the subject
matter hereof and thereof and supersede all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings with respect thereto.


 


(d)       This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts
together shall constitute but one agreement. Fax and electronic signatures shall be deemed originals for all purposes hereof.


 


(e)       This
Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


 


[Remainder
Of This Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 	1	 



     


    


 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


 





	 	COMPANY:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Bionik Laboratories Corp.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Rich Russo Jr.	 
	 	Name: Rich Russo Jr.	 
	 	Title: CFO & Interim CEO	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Rich Russo Jr.	 
	 	Richard Russo	 



 


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT]


 






    	 	2
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600267

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

LUIS R. LOPEZ

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth A. Harvey, USMC.

For Appellant: Captain David A. Peters, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 29 November 2016

_________________________

Before MARKS, GLASER-ALLEN, and BELSKY, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
# C_2016010EN.01000201.xml

| 13.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 January 2016

(2016/C 10/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0836 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4612 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,75080 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2483 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0855 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6388 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 317,75 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3568 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5333 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2842 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5460 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5370 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4094 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6547 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5570 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9737 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1276 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6672 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 965,60 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7830 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,296 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,6895 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,368 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3704 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,2772 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,4603 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0836

JPY

Japanese yen

127,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4612

GBP

Pound sterling

0,75080

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2483

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0855

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6388

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

317,75

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3568

RON

Romanian leu

4,5333

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2842

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5460

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5370

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4094

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6547

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5570

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,87

ZAR

South African rand

17,9737

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1276

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6672

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 965,60

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7830

PHP

Philippine peso

51,296

RUB

Russian rouble

82,6895

THB

Thai baht

39,368

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3704

MXN

Mexican peso

19,2772

INR

Indian rupee

72,4603

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Opinion filed November 30, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00205-CV

___________

JOSHUA OGLE, Appellant

V.

BRENDA KAY JOHNSON, INC. AND

CASEY EQUIPMENT, LTD., Appellees

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-139,276-C

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed in this court a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In 

the motion, the parties state that they have reached a negotiated agreement and 

request that we dismiss this appeal with prejudice and order each party to bear its 

own costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

November 30, 2016 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2734 

To require Senate confirmation of the Director of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SULLIVAN, 

and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require Senate confirmation of the Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Trust in 

5 Public Health Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTERS 

7 FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION. 

8 Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

9 (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2734 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 310B. APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE CEN2 TERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVEN3 TION. 

4 ‘‘The President shall appoint, by and with the advice 

5 and consent of the Senate, the Director of the Centers 

6 for Disease Control and Prevention.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Rita Jacobovitz, Also Known as Jakubovic, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Yizhaq Nagar and Leah Marks Nagar, Appellants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bruce E. Scheckowitz, J.), dated December 18, 2014. The order granted landlord's motion to disqualify Eliezer B. Kraus, Esq., as tenants' attorney.</p><p>ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as moot.</p><p>In this holdover proceeding, tenants, by their attorney, Eliezer B. Kraus, Esq., interposed an answer which included two affirmative defenses. In a motion to disqualify Kraus as tenants' attorney, landlord alleged that she had previously consulted with Kraus and had revealed confidential information to Kraus which was relevant to this matter. Kraus denied any recollection of such consultation. The Civil Court granted landlord's motion to disqualify Kraus.</p><p>Landlord's appellate brief states that, subsequent to the entry of the order appealed from, tenants hired another attorney, and that the holdover proceeding has since been settled. In this circumstance, we conclude that the appeal has been rendered moot (<i>see I.P.X. Constr. Corp. v Mergenthaler</i>, 111 AD2d 310, 312 [1985]; <a href="../2014/2014_51312.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i>, 44 Misc 3d 142</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51315[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]).</p><p>Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.</p><p>Solomon, J.P., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 25, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
1 The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1485

___________ William Thompson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael Francis Young, Dr., Cummins * Unit, Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction, originally sued as “Young,” * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 26, 2000 Filed: January 8, 2001

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. William Thompson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed that Dr. Michael Young was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. After de novo review, see Weaver v. Clarke , 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir. 1995), we agree with the district court-2-

Thompson failed to state an EighthAmendment claim against the prison doctor. The E ighth Amendment does not prohibit a prison doctor from exercising his own independent

medical judgment, and inmates do not have a constitutional right to any particular type of treatment. See Long v. Nix , 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2704 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2704

  To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide relief 
    from surcharges to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            August 10, 2021

 Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide relief 
    from surcharges to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Surcharge Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM SURCHARGE.

    Section 1308A(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 4015a(a)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The 
        Administrator'' and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        Administrator''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Relief for small businesses and nonprofits.--
                    ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term 
                `covered small business or nonprofit organization' 
                means a small business concern (as defined in section 3 
                of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)) or an 
                organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of 
                the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from 
                taxation under section 501(a) of such Code that owns 
                not fewer than 3 structures that are located on a 
                single property.
                    ``(B) Relief.--The Administrator may not impose a 
                surcharge under this section for a policy for flood 
                insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance 
                Program for a covered small business concern or 
                nonprofit organization with respect to more than 2 
                detached units or buildings located on a single 
                property if the covered small business or nonprofit 
                organization certifies to the Administrator that the 
                savings from the surcharge not being imposed shall be 
                used for flood mitigation on the property on which the 
                units or buildings are located.''.
                                 <all>
```