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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6720 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6720

 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, farm, 
              and food worker stabilization grant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2023

 Ms. Budzinski (for herself, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. 
   Sorensen, Mr. Thanedar, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Ms. Craig, Ms. 
 Waters, Ms. Titus, Mr. Pocan, and Ms. Adams) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, farm, 
              and food worker stabilization grant program.

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

SECTION 1. GROCERY, FARM, AND FOOD WORKER STABILIZATION GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
        membership organization, as determined by the Secretary, or 
        labor union representing farmworkers, meat processing workers, 
        or grocery workers.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture.
    (b) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the Administrator 
of the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall establish a grant program 
to provide funding to eligible entities representing farmworkers, meat 
processing workers, and grocery workers for stabilization payments in 
the case of a natural disaster or other disaster, as determined by the 
Secretary.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing the outcomes 
and evaluating the impacts of the program established under subsection 
(b).
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to remain available 
until expended.
                                 <all>
```
#### Antonio SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Fernando Alegria, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Hillary Mitchell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Judhit Santander, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-13263

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 18, 2017)

*778Luis Antonio Cabassa, Steven G. Wen-zel, Brandon Hill, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr., Theane Evangelis, Gibson Dunn *&*Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Courtney B. Wilson, Littler Mendelson, PC, Miami, FL, Anthony J. Hall, Littler Mendelson, PC, Orlando, FL, Joshua S. Lipshutz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Ring-Dowell, Gibson Dunn *&*Crutcher, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Kevin Patrick Flanagan, National Labor Relations Board, Appellate Litigation, Washington, DC, Paul A. Thomas, National Labor Relations Board, Contempt, Compliance, and Special Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for National Labor Relations Board

Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants, who previously worked as drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc., sued Uber asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201*et seq,,*the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501,201 *et seq.*When Uber moved to compel arbitration in the district court, the drivers opposed the motion on the ground that the entire written agreement they had entered into was unconscionable under both California and Florida law.

Now, on appeal, the drivers assert three new arguments. They argue that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. § 1, that the delegation clause is inapplicable because of the FAA exemption, and that the class waiver in Uber’s software agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act under 29 U.S.C. § 157. In exercise of our.discretion, we choose not to address these arguments, which are raised for the first time on appeal. *See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,*385 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing “a case that is wholly different” from the case litigated below). We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to compel arbitration.

AFFIRMED.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                    [LETTERHEAD OF ELVINGER, HOSS & PRUSSEN]

    We hereby consent to being named and to the summarization of advice
attributed to us in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2001.

                                          ELVINGER, HOSS & PRUSSEN

                                          By:  /s/ Jean Hoss

Luxembourg,
May 29, 2002
#### Anthony Quentin KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie A. SIMPSON, Case Management Specialist; State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6155

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: July 10, 2017

Anthony Quentin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Kelly v. Simpson,*No. 1:16-cv-04067-RDB (D. Md. Jan. 13 *&*26, 2017). We deny Kelly’s motion for emergency reversal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Russell G. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee, and Sara M. Revell, Respondent.

No. 13-7784

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 12, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Russell G. Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*709Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Russell Garnet Turner, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Turner v. Apker,*No. 5:12-hc-02122-BO (E.D.N.C. July 30 & Oct. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
RECEiVED 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AUG 2 5 2015 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

Triumph Accessory Services 

HEARING DOCKET 

Served: August 20, 2015 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0636 

FAA Case No. 2014CE070023 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

RESPONDENT'S WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING 

AND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.215, Respondent hereby withdraws its request for a hearing and 

Answer to Complaint. The parties reached a settlement in this matter on August 12,2015 and 

therefore Respondent respectfully requests that the case be dismissed. 

Dated at Alexandria, VA, this 21st day of August, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MarshallS. Filler 

Counsel for Triumph Group Operations, Inc. 

d/b/a Triumph Accessory Services 

Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. 

117 North Hemy Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314-2903 

Telephone: (703) 299-0784 

Facsimile: (703) 299-0254 

E-Mail: marshall.filler@potomac-law.com 

I 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Laura Vlieg, hereby certifY that I have on this date sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt requested, the original and one copy of the foregoing Respondent's 

Withdrawal of Request for Hearing and Answer to Complaint, addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

In addition, I hereby certify that I have on this date sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt requested, one copy of the foregoing document to the following 

addressees: 

Jeffry D. Frisbee, Respondent 

President and CEO 

Triumph Group Operations, Inc. d/b/a Triumph Accessories Services 

899 Cassatt Road, Suite 210 

Berwyn, PA 19312 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel, Central Region, ACE-7 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Dated: August 21,2015 

2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6942 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions by requiring that, in 

the questionnaires used in the taking of any decennial census of population, a checkbox or other similar option be included for respondents 

to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. ROSENDALE (for himself, Mr. HARRIS, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. FRY, Mr. DUNCAN, 

Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. COLLINS, and Mr. WILSON of 

South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To prevent congressional reapportionment distortions by requiring that, in the questionnaires used in the taking 

of any decennial census of population, a checkbox or 

other similar option be included for respondents to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence in the United 

States. 

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 ‘‘Count Only Citizens 

5 Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6942 IH

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL PRESENCE STATUS ON 

2 CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES. 

3 In conducting the 2030 decennial census and every 

4 decennial census thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce 

5 shall include, in any questionnaire distributed or otherwise 

6 used for the purpose of determining the total population 

7 by States, a checkbox or other similar option for respond8 ents to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence in 

9 the United States. 

10 SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL REAPPORTION11 MENT DISTORTIONS. 

12 (a) ADJUSTMENTS TO PREVENT DISTORTIONS.— 

13 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended— 

14 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub15 section (h); and 

16 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol17 lowing: 

18 ‘‘(g) The Secretary shall make such adjustments in 

19 total population figures as may be necessary, using such 

20 methods and procedures as the Secretary determines fea21 sible and appropriate, in order that those who are not 

22 United States citizens or are not lawfully present in the 

23 United States are not counted in tabulating population 

24 under subsection (b) for the purposes of apportionment 

25 of Representatives in Congress among the several States. 

3 

•HR 6942 IH

1 Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to supersede 

2 section 195 of this title.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 22(a) of 

4 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act To provide for the fifteenth and 

5 subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for appor6 tionment of Representatives in Congress’’, of June 18, 

7 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘as 

8 ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent 

9 decennial census of the population’’ and inserting ‘‘as 

10 ascertained and reported under section 141 of title 13, 

11 United States Code, for each decennial census of popu12 lation’’. 

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

s0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138151 & (24) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138151 

 COA: 284673 

Oakland CC: 2005-200959-FC 

GERALD DEWAYNE WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 10-Q/A

Amendment No. 1





(Mark One)

|x | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the quarter ended: March 31, 2008

or



| ̈ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the transition period from  to

Commission File Number: 0-23885





FUTURES STRATEGIC TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its
charter)







|                                                               |  |                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Delaware                                                       |  | 13-7075398                          
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |  | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)



|                                                |  |           
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------
|900 King Street, Suite 100, Rye Brook, New York |  | 10573     
|(Address of principal executive offices)        |  | (Zip Code)

(914) 307-7000

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days.    Yes  x    No   ̈

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of accelerated filer, large
accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):



|                        |  |   |  |                           |  |  
|----------------------- |  | - |  | ------------------------- |  | -
|Large accelerated filer |  |  ̈ |  | Accelerated filer         |  |  ̈
|                        |  |   | 
|Non-accelerated filer   |  | x |  | Smaller Reporting Company |  |  ̈

Indicate by check mark whether Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act).    Yes   ̈    No  x









---

FUTURES STRATEGIC TRUST





Explanatory Note

The Form 10-Q/A is being filed solely to correct the omission of certain language required under
the Certification in the Futures Strategic Trusts Form 10-Q previously filed on May 15, 2008, which are restated in their entirety herewith. Except for the foregoing amended information, no other changes have been made to the Form 10-Q
filed on May 15, 2008.



2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17

- 15718
Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17

- cr

- 00066

- LGW

- GRS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

EVEROL PALMER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________
(August 29, 2018) Case: 17-15718 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 1 of 22 Before TJOFLAT

, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Jenkins , appointed counsel for Everol Palmer in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our

independent review of the entir e record reveals that counsel has cor rectly assessed

the relative merit of the appeal. Because our independent examination of the entire

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED , and Palmer ’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 17-15718 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 2 of 2
#### MOUNTAIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., DBA Pregnancy and Family Resource Center; Birth Choice of the Desert; His Nesting Place, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General of the State of California, in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56130

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*808Submitted June 9, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed June 19, 2017

Nicolaie Cocis, Attorney, Law Office of Nic Cocis, Murrieta, CA, Mary Elizabeth McAlister, Daniel Joseph Schmid, Esquire, ■ Litigation Counsel, Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, VA, Horatio Gabriel Mihet, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Liberty Counsel, Maitland, FL, Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Jonathan Michael Eisenberg, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LIPEZ,** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (“the Act”) requires licensed crisis pregnancy centers to notify clients that they may be eligible for free or low-cost abortions and unlicensed facilities to notify clients that they are not state-licensed. In this action, three faith-based, non-profit crisis pregnancy centers, Mountain Right to Life, Inc. (d/b/a Pregnancy and Family Resource Center), Birth Choice of the Desert, and His Nesting Place, argue that the Act violates the First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion clauses. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ appeal from the denial of the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and affirm, because this case is controlled by our intervening opinion in *National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Harris,*839 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2016) *(“NIFLA”).*

1. The district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free speech or free exercise claims. *See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,*555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The Act regulates licensed covered facilities’ professional speech, and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives. *ÑIF-LA,*839 F.3d at 838-42. The notice requirement for unlicensed covered facilities survives any level of review. *Id.*at 843-44. And as to the free exercise claim, the Act is a neutral law of general applicability that survives rational basis review. *Id.*at 844-45.

2. Because Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim, nor have they raised serious questions going to the merits, we need not consider the remaining *Winter*factors. *Id.*at 845 *&*n.ll.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 25, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 25, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0330. JENIFER PRINDIVILLE SUAREZ v. PAUL ALEXANDRE SUAREZ. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: SPDR1901652
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-12-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          59,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,027
<PP&E>                                         288,691
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 380,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,980
<BONDS>                                        265,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   380,653
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,091
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>