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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6304 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6304

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona, as the ``Adolfo `Harpo' 
                         Celaya Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ADOLFO ``HARPO'' CELAYA POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 North Main Street in Florence, Arizona, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Adolfo `Harpo' Celaya Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Adolfo 
`Harpo' Celaya Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0539 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0539

**2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) **

*
Official Journal L 194 , 18/07/2001 P. 0038 - 0038 *

Council Decision

of 5 April 2001

on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention)

(2001/539/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) It is beneficial for European Community air carriers to operate under uniform and clear rules regarding their liability for damage and that such rules should be the same as those applicable to carriers from third countries.

(2) The Community took part in the International Diplomatic Conference on air law convened in Montreal from 10 to 28 May 1999, which resulted in the adoption of the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air (the Montreal Convention), and it signed the said Convention on 9 December 1999.

(3) Regional Economic Integration Organisations which have competence in respect of certain matters governed by the Montreal Convention may be parties to it.

(4) The Community and its Member States share competence in the matters covered by the Montreal Convention and it is therefore necessary for them simultaneously to ratify it in order to guarantee uniform and complete application of its provisions within the European Union,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("the Montreal Convention") is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall deposit, on behalf of the European Community, the instrument provided for in Article 53(3) of the Montreal Convention with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, together with the Declaration of Competence.

The instrument shall be deposited simultaneously with the instruments of ratification of all the Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 5 April 2001.

For the Council

The President

B. Rosengren

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000, p. 225.

(2) Opinion of 16 January 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Exhibit 10.85 - Agreement between Eos, Weichert and DL dated June 7, 2002





	


AGREEMENT



This Agreement (this “Agreement”)
is made as of June 7, 2002, by and between EOS International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (formerly dreamlife, inc.) (“EOS”), Weichert Enterprises, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Weichert”) and DL Holdings I, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“DL Holdings”).  



RECITALS



     A.
Reference is made to the Registration Rights Agreement by and among EOS, Weichert and DL
Holdings dated as of December 14, 2001, as amended (the “Registration Rights Agreement”). 



     B.
EOS, Weichert and DL Holdings desire to further amend the Registration Rights Agreement
on the terms set forth herein. 



     EOS,
Weichert and DL Holdings hereby agree as follows:  



The Registration
Rights Agreement Amendments.



     Amendments
to Section 9(c). The next to last sentence of Section 9(c) shall be amended to add at
the end thereof the words “, provided, however, that if the Call Notice is given
prior to July 15, 2002, the Call Notice may be given on at least one (1) day’s prior
written notice (which notice shall be irrevocable) of the Company’s intention to
exercise its repurchase right set forth in this Section 9(c), specifying the Call Closing
Date which in such event shall be not less than one (1) day nor more than ten (10) days
after the date of the Call Notice.” 



     Amendments
Relating to Section 9(e). Section 9(e) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following: “Subject to the provisions of Section 9(g), the repurchase price (the
“Repurchase Price”) for the Warrants which are to be repurchased by the Company
pursuant to Section 9(a) or Section 9(c) shall be (i) $0.30 per share, if the repurchase
occurs on or prior to June 7, 2002; (ii) $0.45 per share, if the repurchase occurs after
June 7, 2002 but prior to June 28, 2002; (iii) $0.60 per share, if the repurchase occurs
after June 28, 2002 but prior to July 19, 2002; (iv) $0.75 per share, if the repurchase
occurs after July 19, 2002 but prior to August 14, 2002; and (v) $0.90 per share, if the
repurchase occurs after August 14, 2002; provided, that, the Company shall
not be required to make any such repurchase prior to the earlier of (i) the date on which
the Notes are paid in full, and (ii) July 16, 2002.” 



[SIGNATURE PAGE
FOLLOWS]
















     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and
year first above written.  












	WEICHERT ENTERPRISES, LLC



By:         GERALD C. CROTTY 
——————————————

Name:    Gerald C. Crotty

Title:      President		EOS INTERNATIONAL, INC.



By:         PETER A. LUND
——————————————

Name:    Peter A. Lund
Title:     Chairman







	DL HOLDINGS I, L.L.C.



By:         DAN STERN 
——————————————

Name:    Dan Stern
Title:     Managing Member
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION





We, John N. Hatsopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, and Anthony S. Loumidis, Chief Financial Officer, of American DG Energy Inc., or the company, certify, 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, that:




1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the company for the year ended December 31, 2010, or the Report, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d)); and




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.




Date: March 31, 2011/s/ John N. HatsopoulosJohn N. HatsopoulosChief Executive Officer/s/ Anthony S. LoumidisAnthony S. LoumidisChief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.




A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Manuel RODELA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2108

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed October 16, 2017

*828John Andrew Balia, Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Virginia L. Grady, O. Dean Sanderford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Jesus Manuel Rodela-Castillo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). His plea agreement included a broad waiver of his appellate rights, including the right to appeal his sentence if it was at or under the maximum statutory penalty authorized by law (i.e., life imprisonment). The court sentenced him to 46 months in prison. Nevertheless, he now seeks to challenge his sentence through this appeal.

The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In evaluating a motion to enforce a waiver under *Hahn,*we consider: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” *Id.*at 1325.

In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Rodela-Castillo, through counsel, “agrees that his appeal waiver is enforceable under the standard articulated in *[Hahn]”*and states that he “does not oppose the dismissal of this appeal.” Resp. to Mot. to Enforce Appellate Waiver at 1 (Sept. 14, 2017). Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. We do so, however, without prejudice to Mr. Rodela-Castillo’s right to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Jean Paul GAMARRA, Appellant v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Appellee

No. 16-5257

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 25, 2017

Jean Paul Gamarra, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant on October 31, 2016, and the supplement and notices thereto. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and appellant’s motions “for ad hearing to warrant bounty order” and to strike the affidavit of an incompetent witness, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered August 17, 2016 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for “ad hearing to warrant bounty order” and to strike the affidavit of an incompetent witness be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The *648Clerk 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.
#### Brenda KAPPOS, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-60605

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 16, 2017

Brenda Kappos, Pro Se

Karen G. Gregory, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Michael J. Haungs,- Esq., Supervisory Attorney, Kathryn Keneally, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14099-14100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Establish Price for United States Mint Numismatic Product

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the following 
new United States Mint numismatic product in accordance with the table 
below:

[[Page 14100]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               SKU                        Product             Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22RC.............................  2022 Limited Edition         $201.00
                                    Silver Proof SetTM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Janeski, Marketing Specialist, 
Sales and Marketing 202-306-9666; United States Mint; 801 9th Street 
NW; Washington, DC 20220.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, 5132, & 9701)

Eric Anderson,
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2022-05181 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JAMES M. HOOKS,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1301

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 731, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

Decided: July 12, 2024

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER , Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant

- appellant. Also represented by K ENT A. E ILER

.

M EREDYTH C OHEN H AVASY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States De partment of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , W ILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY ; A MANDA B LACKMON , Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2024HOOKS v. MCDONOUGH 2

B RIAN D. G RIFFIN , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Aff airs , Washington, DC.

______________________

Before C HEN , S TOLL , and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges

. C HEN , Circuit Judge

. James M. Hooks appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) finding no clear and unmistakable error in a 2002 administrative decision by the Department of V eterans Af fairs (VA). Hooks v. McDonough , No. 21

- 0731, 2022 WL 4285679 (Vet. App. Sept. 16, 2022)

. The VA found thatMr. Hooks’s discharge under other than honorable conditions was “considered to have been issued under dishonorable conditions” due to Mr. Hooks’s “ willful and persistent misconduct.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (d), (d)(4) (2002)

. Mr. Hooks makes the following arguments to this court: (1)

s ection 3.12(d)(4) has no statutory predicate ; (2) the plain meaning of “willful and persistent conduct” is ambiguous ; and (3) the V eterans Court erred by relying upon a misinterpretation of the term “persistent

, ” as used in section 3.12(d)(4) as codified at the time of the VA’s decision

. Because Mr. Hooks did not present th ese argument s to either the Board or the Veterans Court, Mr. Hooks may not do so here. See Gurley v. McDonough , 23 F.4th 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ( arguments not raised to the Veterans Court are forfeited).
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2024
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SKYLYFT MEDIA NETWORK, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Greg Guido, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

April 15, 2009

/s/ Greg GuidoGreg Guido, Chief Financial Officer

1

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3089

_____________________________

RICHARD A. ALEXANDER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Borello, Judge.

March 13, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Richard A. Alexander, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Kim Mayyasi, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                               
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 10, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ KIM MAYYASI                               
|                       |  |  |  | Kim Mayyasi President, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.



I, Richard L. Markee, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                               
|-------------------------------
|                               
|/s/    RICHARD L.
MARKEE       
|Richard L. Markee              
|Interim Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)  
|December 8, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Donell MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6963

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Gregory Donell Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Russell Pender, Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Donell Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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.E.d.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 motion 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 Miller 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*