alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6394 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans. 

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

•HR 6394 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Broadband 

3 Access for Veterans Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROMOTING BROADBAND INTERNET 

5 ACCESS SERVICE FOR VETERANS. 

6 (a) VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

7 ‘‘veteran’’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 

8 of title 38, United States Code. 

9 (b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Commu11 nications Commission shall submit to Congress a report 

12 on promoting broadband Internet access service for vet13 erans, in particular low-income veterans and veterans re14 siding in rural areas. In such report, the Commission 

15 shall— 

16 (1) examine such access and how to promote 

17 such access; and 

18 (2) provide findings and recommendations for 

19 Congress with respect to such access and how to 

20 promote such access. 

21 (c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO COM22 MENT.—In preparing the report required by subsection 

23 (b), the Commission shall provide the public with notice 

24 and an opportunity to comment on broadband Internet ac25 cess service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans 
3 

•HR 6394 EH

1 and veterans residing in rural areas, and how to promote 

2 such access. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6394 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commisbroadband Internet access service for veterans. sion to submit to Congress a report on promoting
# Official Journal C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.011.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 11A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.011.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 11A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France (Temporary Agent — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2014/C 011A/01

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for the Executive Director of the European Railway Agency (ERA), in France (Temporary Agent — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

(OJ C 6 A, 10.1.2014)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### S. Baldwin Chapman, Appellant, *v.*Andrew S. Wheeler, Respondent.

(Submitted June 11, 1872 ;

decided November 12, 1872.)

*667
      *A. H.*and *W. E. Osburn*for the appellant.

*Eagner*and *Qoodge*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm.

Ho opinion.

Order affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60349

GEORGIA RAMSAY, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

OMNIBANK, ET AL.,

Defendants.

OMNIBANK, Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO.,

Third Party Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

June 6, 2002

Before REYNALDO G. GARZ A, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case we certified a question to the Supreme Court of

Mississippi, asking:

Whether an insurer’s duty to defend under a general
commercial liability policy for injuries caused by
accidents extends, under Mississippi law, to injuries
unintended by the insured but which result ed from1 Ramsay v. Omnibank , 215 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2000).

2 Id . at 502-03.

3 United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Omnibank , 812 So.2d 196, 197-98 (Miss. 2002).

4 Id. at 202.

2 intentional actions of the insured if those actions were negligent but not intentionally tortious. 1

The details of the case are set out both in our certification 2 and

the Mississippi Suprem e Court’s answer. 3 Since it is now clear

that, under Mississippi law, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

had no duty to defend Omnibank from the underlying suit, 4 we must

REVERSE and REMAND for entry of summary judgment in favor of USF&G.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 10.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-188107 on Form F-3 of Gazit-Globe Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of
our report dated March 15, 2012 relating to the 2011 consolidated financial statements (before retrospective adjustments discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements) of First Capital Realty Inc. (not presented herein),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Gazit-Globe Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2013.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte LLP                                         
|                                                         
|Chartered Professional Accountants, Chartered Accountants
|Licensed Public Accountants                              
|Toronto, Canada                                          
|September 23, 2014
#### Robert A. MCNEIL, Appellant, v. IRS COMMISSIONER and United States Attorney General, Appellees.

No. 16-5233

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 31, 2017

l:15-cv-01288-CKK

Robert A. McNeil, Pro Se.

*649Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Bruce R. Ellisen, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Tax Division, Appellate Section, DOJ Appellate Counsel, (DOJ) Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Appel-lees.

BEFORE: Brown and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

ORDER

Per Curiam

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the supplement, the response thereto, and the reply; the motion for summary reversal and the response thereto; the motions for judicial notice and the responses thereto; and the motion in limine and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motions for judicial notice be denied. Appellant has not shown the materials of which judicial notice is sought are necessary to the disposition of this appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion in limine be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court appropriately dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint effectively challenged the legality of income tax and the requirement to file tax returns, thereby falling within the clear ambit of the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). In no way does the limited exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, articulated in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962), apply to this case. Further, nothing appellant argues on appeal demonstrates that the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not' be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23262-23263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09708]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Certification Notice-234]

Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under 
the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2015, CPV Valley, LLC, as owner and operator of a 
new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-
certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to Sec.  
201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as 
amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations 
thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-
certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 
501.61(c).

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are 
available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-
024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-
5260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to 
meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such 
a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary 
energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) 
prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric 
powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or 
another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with 
FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 
U.S.C. 8311.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
501.60, 61:
    Owner: CPV Valley, LLC.
    Capacity: 720 megawatts (MW).
    Plant Location: CPV Valley Energy Center, Route 6, Middletown, NY 
10940.
    In-Service Date: October 15, 2017.

[[Page 23263]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2015.
 Brian Mills,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2015-09708 Filed 4-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Authority.



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger EtessChief Executive Officer, Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMay 11, 2006




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Prospero Juan SOSA-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51100 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Prospero Juan Sosa-Huerta, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Prospero Juan Sosa-Huerta has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sosa-Huerta has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. *See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez,*825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### RUPERTO VINCENTE *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 20318)

Landau, Mihalakos and O’Connell, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 6

officially released May 8, 2001

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge,
that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: December 22, 2006



/s/ Victor J. SalernoBy:

Victor J. SalernoTitle:

President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Interim Principal Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0422 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0422

**2001/422/EC: Commission Decision of 21 May 2001 on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Austria pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (notified under document number C(2001) 1442) **

*
Official Journal L 151 , 07/06/2001 P. 0040 - 0040 *

Commission Decision

of 21 May 2001

on the inventory of wine production potential presented by Austria pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

(notified under document number C(2001) 1442)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(2001/422/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, of 17 May 1999, on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 23(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 provides for the presentation of an inventory of wine production potential. Access to the regularisation of unlawfully planted areas, the increase in planting rights and support for restructuring and conversion is subject to prior presentation of this inventory.

(2) Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential(3), sets out details of the information to be included in the inventory.

(3) By letters of 13 November 2000 and 14 February 2001 Austria sent the Commission the information referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999. Examination of this information shows that Austria has compiled the inventory.

(4) This Decision does not entail recognition by the Commission of the accuracy of the information contained in the inventory or of the compatibility of the legislation referred to in the inventory with Community law. It is without prejudice to any future Commission decision on these points.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Commission notes that Austria has compiled the inventory refered to in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 143, 16.6.2000, p. 1.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The undersigned, Eugene Seymour, MD, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of NanoViricides, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
the annual report on Form 10-K of NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NanoViricides, Inc.
 
 Dated: April 16, 2010
  /s/ Eugene SeymourEugene SeymourChief Executive and Interim Financial Officer(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to NanoViricides, Inc. and will be retained by NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 28, 2006 Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. TERRENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1210 United States of America, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee , District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 04 CR 31 Edward Birk, Defendants-Appellees . Amy St. Eve, Judge

.

O R D E R The slip opinion issued in the above-entitled cause on July 11, 2006, is amended as follows: Page 1: The sentence: “On appeal, Birk argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process of law when the government’s witness testified that Birk had a “very violent and extensive” criminal background and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to object to this testimony.”; is hereby amended to read as follows: “On appeal, Birk argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process of law when the government’s witness testified that Birk had a “very violent and extensive” criminal background.”; Page 8: Part II. Issues, which reads: “On appeal, Birk argues that he was denied aPage 2 fair trial and due process of law when the government's witness informed the jury that Birk had a “very violent and extensive” criminal background, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney's failure to object to the testimony of the government witness that Birk had a “very violent and extensive” criminal background, and that the district court erred in imposing a two level enhancement on Birk's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) upon finding that the offense and relevant conduct included Birk's involvement with four firearms.”; is hereby amended to read as follows: “On appeal, Birk argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process of law when the government's witness informed the jury that Birk had a “very violent and extensive” criminal background and that the district court erred in imposing a two level enhancement on Birk's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) upon finding that the offense and relevant conduct included Birk's involvement with four firearms.”; Page 11-12: Part III.B. of the opinion entitled “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” is redacted in its entirety; and Page 12: Part III.C. of the opinion entitled “Sentence Enhancements” is amended to read “B. Sentence Enhancements.”