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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 709 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 709

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 2015

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To provide for the termination of employment of employees of the 
    Internal Revenue Service who take certain official actions for 
                          political 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 ``Prevent Targeting at the IRS Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES 
              FOR TAKING OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(10) performing, delaying, or failing to perform (or 
        threatening to perform, delay, or fail to perform) any official 
        action (including any audit) with respect to a taxpayer for 
        purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit or for a 
        political purpose.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 15, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Francis C. MBEWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank BISHOP; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-7760

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2017

Decided: June 13, 2017

Francis C. Mbewe, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francis C. Mbewe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mbewe 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julia Ann ROMO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10034

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 2, 2017

Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Julia Ann Romo, Pro Se

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Julia Ann Romo appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the four-month sentence imposed upon revocation. *500Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Romo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Romo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Roxann J. FRANKLIN-MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-1985

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 14, 2017

*634Lisa Alexis Jones, Lisa Alexis Jones, PLLC, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Courtney D. Enlow, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Reginald T. Blades, Jr.

(Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0297 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0297

**2002/297/EC: Commission Decision of 10 April 2002 amending for the eighth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 1375) **

*
Official Journal L 101 , 17/04/2002 P. 0046 - 0057 *

Commission Decision

of 10 April 2002

amending for the eighth time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2002) 1375)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/297/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 95/176/EC(2), and in particular Articles 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/73/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Canada officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of one additional equine semen collection centre and submitted additional details of such centres already approved.

(3) The competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of four additional equine semen collection centres, and the need to change certain details of two other equine semen collection centres.

(4) Furthermore, the competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission that the approval has been withdrawn from the three centres 00TX009-EQS, 99TX006-EQS and 01PA004-EQS.

(5) It is appropriate to amend the list in the light of new information received from the third countries concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 117, 24.5.1995, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 33, 2.2.2002, p. 18.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6296
ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RON ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-149-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. 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 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkins v. Angelone , No. CA-96-149-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 1996). 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
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0522(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0522(01)

**Council Decision of 7 May 2002 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers **

*
Official Journal C 119 , 22/05/2002 P. 0001 - 0003 *

Council Decision

of 7 May 2002

appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

(2002/C 119/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/80 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1), and in particular Articles 26 and 27 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

(1) The Council, by its Decision of 17 December 1999(2), appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 17 December 1999 to 16 December 2001.

(2) Members and alternate members of the said Committee should be appointed for a period of two years,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period 7 May 2002 to 6 May 2004:

I. GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

>TABLE>

II. WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES

>TABLE>

III. EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVES

>TABLE>

Article 2

The Council will at a later date appoint the members not yet designated by Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 7 May 2002.

For the Council

The President

R. de Rato y Figaredo

(1) OJ L 257, 18.10.1968, p. 2.

(2) OJ C 4, 7.1.2000, p. 1.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Antonio GALLO-TAVIZON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50474

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

OCTOBER 27, 2017

Susan Leah Park, Helen H. Hong, Colin M. McDonald, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Antonio Gallo-Tavizon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 85-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gallo-Tavizon contends that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, in denying his request for a minor role reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Contrary to Gallo-Tavizon’s argument, the district court fully considered the five factors under the amended Guideline in determining that he was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Furthermore, the record reflects that, in assessing Gallo-Tavizon’s role, the court propferlj| compared Gallo-Tavizon to his co-participants in the offense. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, *586523 (9th Cir. 2016). The.court discussed drug couriers in other cases only in reference to the issue of how greatly Gallo-Tavizon stood to benefit from the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C)(v). Finally, the court did not err in considering Gallo-Tavizon’s previous drug crossings. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006).

In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Gallo-Tavizon was not a minor participant. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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

November 23, 2009 

s1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

138893 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138893 

 COA: 290491 

Ottawa CC: 93-017028-FC 

JOHN WILLIAM BIEGAJSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2009 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).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
accompanying Annual Report of GSC Investment Corp. on Form 10-K (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Seth M.
Katzenstein, the Chief Executive Officer and President and Richard T. Allorto,
Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of GSC Investment Corp., each certifies that,
to the best of his knowledge:





1.
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Exchange Act; and





2.
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of GSC
      Investment Corp.





Date:
  May 28, 2010





/s/ Seth M. KatzensteinName:  Seth
      M. KatzensteinChief
      Executive Officer and President/s/ Richard T. Allorto,
  Jr.Name:  Richard
      T. Allorto, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the unaudited
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1997, and the unaudited statement of
income for the six months then contained in the report on Form 10-Q for the six
months ended June 30, 1997, of Batteries Batteries, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety be reference to such financial statements:
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                       402
<INVENTORY>                                     10,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,239
<PP&E>                                           1,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                     131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,705
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,298
<SALES>                                         25,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,573
<CGS>                                           18,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    778
<INCOME-TAX>                                       335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.10
        


</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00507

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v. JOSE RUIZ
On Appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 34

- 13

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appea l, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 11, 2021
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
           FACTORY CARD & PARTY OUTLET CORP. 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

          The Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"), is hereby amended, effective April 23, 2002, as follows:

                                       I.

          The name of the Plan is hereby amended to be the "Factory Card & Party
Outlet Corp. 2002 Stock Option Plan" (the "Plan").

                                       II.

          Section 2(d) is amended by adding "or, if no Compensation Committee of
the Board has been appointed, the Board." at the end of the definition of
"Committee".

                                      III.

          In all other respects the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

          The undersigned certifies that he is the duly elected and acting
Secretary of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and that the foregoing First
Amendment to the Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan was
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. as
of April 23, 2002.


Dated: April 23, 2002                   /s/ Gary W. Rada
                                        ----------------
                                        Gary W. Rada
                                        President and Chief Operating Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41618

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO CASTANEDA-SILVA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-625-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Castaneda-Silva (Castaneda) appeals the 10-year statutory

minimum sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to

distribute cocaine. He contends that he was entitled to a safety-valve sentence

below the statutory minimum because he truthfully provided the Government

with information about the crime. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f)(5). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41618

2

The district court did not commit clear error by finding that Castaneda

made inconsistent statements to the Government about the number of

smuggling trips he made and was thus not completely truthful in his disclosures

to the Government. Castaneda failed to show that he was entitled to the safety

valve reduction. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995).

Castaneda also contends that he should have received a downward

departure from the advisory sentencing range because he participated in the

criminal activity under duress. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12. This contention is moot

because Castaneda cannot avoid the statutory minimum sentence by way of the

safety valve. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 763

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING STAR, 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

S 763 ES

1 SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

2 Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of

3 title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer4 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Sec5 retary of Transportation may issue a certificate of docu6 mentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel

7 EVENING STAR, hull identification number

8 HA2833700774, and State of Hawaii registration number

9 HA8337D.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 763

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

STAR, and for other purposes.wise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENINGissue a certificate of documentation and coast-