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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 989

To limit funding of an executive order that would prohibit Federal contractors

from hiring permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. COATS, Mr. GORTON, and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To limit funding of an executive order that would prohibit

Federal contractors from hiring permanent replacements

for lawfully striking employees, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness in Federal

5 Contracting Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

8 (1) it is the role of Congress, as the representa9 tive body of the people, to decide the policy of the
2

•S 989 IS

1 United States with respect to relations between

2 management and labor; and

3 (2) the executive branch should not use the

4 Federal procurement process to initiate major

5 changes in the labor-management relations of the

6 United States.

7 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to ensure

8 that the Congress decides important labor-management

9 relations policy by prohibiting the executive branch from

10 spending any appropriated funds for the purpose of imple11 menting an executive order that would debar or in any

12 way limit the right of Federal contractors under common

13 law to use permanent replacements for lawfully striking

14 employees.

15 SEC. 3. LIMIT ON APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

16 None of the funds made available under any appro17 priations Act for fiscal year 1995 may be used to issue,

18 implement, administer, or enforce any executive order, or

19 other rule, regulation, or order, that limits, restricts, or

20 otherwise affects the ability of any existing or potential

21 Federal contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to hire per22 manent replacements for lawfully striking employees.

Æ
#### Jenny MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELI LILLY & CO., Lilly USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-13043

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 21, 2017)

Cheryl Barnes Legare, Legare Attwood & Wolfe, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Edward Daniel Buckley, Buckley Beal, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Ellen Elizabeth Boshkoff, Rozlyn Fulgo-ni-Britton, Amanda L. Shelby,. Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Stephen M. Brooks, Lucas Allen Westby, Nelson Mullins- Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Atlanta, GA, D. Lucetta Pope, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, South Bend, IN, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and BALDOCK,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Jenny Martin obtained a jury verdict in her favor on a claim that her former employer, Defendant Eli Lilly *&*Company (“Lilly”), discriminated against her on the basis of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112. In a separate appeal, Lilly challenged the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. We reversed and directed the district court to enter judgment in Lilly’s favor. *See Martin v. Eli Lilly & Co.,*No. 16-11537, — Fed.Appx, -, 2017 WL 3098122 (11th Cir. 2017). In this appeal, Martin argues the district court incorrectly calculated the attorney’s fees it awarded her as the prevailing party. Because Martin is no longer the prevailing party, her appeal is moot. We DISMISS the appeal.

JORDAN, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

As noted in my dissent in Case No. 16-11537, I disagree with the majority about the merits. But, because of the majority’s ruling, Ms. Martin is no longer a prevailing party, and I agree that her appeal about attorney’s fees is necessarily moot.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6375 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6375

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy 
   efficiency standards to certain security or life safety alarms or 
                         surveillance systems.

    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 ``Power And Security Systems (PASS) 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD MODE ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
              STANDARD TO CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE SAFETY ALARM OR 
              SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.

    (a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2021''; and
            (2) by striking ``2017'' and inserting ``2023''.
    (b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``July 1, 2017,'' and 
        inserting ``the effective date of the amendment under 
        subparagraph (D)(ii)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) Treatment in rule.--In the rule 
                        under subparagraph (D)(ii) and subsequent 
                        amendments the Secretary may treat some or all 
                        external power supplies designed to be 
                        connected to a security or life safety alarm or 
                        surveillance system as a separate product class 
                        or may extend the nonapplication under clause 
                        (ii).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Sheldon D. SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ryan E. GARRETT; Jeremy B. McRee, Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-20647 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 6, 2017

Sheldon D. Simmons, Pro Se

Patrick Todd Pope, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sheldon D. Simmons, Texas prisoner # 1588486, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Correctional Officers Ryan E. Garrett and Jeremy B. McRee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, alleging that they used excessive force against him. He appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his § 1983 action following a jury verdict in favor of Garrett and McRee. Simmons contends that the jury verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

After the jury’s verdict, Simmons did not move for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Therefore, this court is without power to review his unpreserved sufficiency claims. *See Ortiz v. Jordan,*562 U.S. 180, 189, 131 S.Ct. 884, 178 L.Ed.2d 703 (2011) (“Absent [a Rule 50(b) ] motion, we have repeatedly held, an appellate court is ‘powerless’ to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial.”); *Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.,*546 U.S. 394, 401-02, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006); *Downey v. Strain,*510 F.3d 534, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2007).

Simmons further contends that his attorneys were ineffective because they failed to file a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. This claim is frivolous as the *324right to effective assistance of counsel does not apply to civil proceedings. *See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Assail, Inc.,*410 F.3d 256, 267 (5th Cir. 2005); *Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv.,*785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, any deficient conduct by Simmons’s attorneys does not constitute a basis for invalidating the district court’s judgment. *See Sanchez,*785 F.2d at 1237; *Gilbert v. Berndt,*400 Fed.Appx. 842, 844 (5th Cir. 2010).

Finally, Simmons moves for appointment of counsel. There is no general right to counsel in civil rights actions. *McFaul v. Valenzuela,*684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012). Simmons has not shown that exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel. *See id.*Therefore, his motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 18 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 18

Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque to 
                the Supreme Court for a funeral service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 26 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

    Mr. Dole (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque to 
                the Supreme Court for a funeral service.
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that the said catafalque may be used in the Supreme 
Court Building in connection with services to be conducted there for 
the late Honorable Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0470 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0470

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 470/2003 of 13 March 2003 fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 256/2003 **

*
Official Journal L 070 , 14/03/2003 P. 0030 - 0030 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 470/2003

of 13 March 2003

fixing the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 256/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 256/2003(3).

(2) Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000(5), the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, may decide to fix maximum reduction in the import duty. In fixing this maximum the criteria provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum reduction in the duty.

(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum reduction in the import duty being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 7 to 13 March 2003, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 256/2003, the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported shall be 37,94 EUR/t and be valid for a total maximum quantity of 69050 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 March 2003.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 March 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 36, 12.2.2003, p. 10.

(4) OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4.

(5) OJ L 256, 10.10.2000, p. 13.
# EUR-Lex - 32003E0537 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003E0537

**Council Joint Action 2003/537/CFSP of 21 July 2003 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process and amending Joint Action 2002/965/CFSP **

*
Official Journal L 184 , 23/07/2003 P. 0045 - 0045 *

Council Joint Action 2003/537/CFSP

of 21 July 2003

appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process and amending Joint Action 2002/965/CFSP

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 14, 18(5) and 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Council Joint Action 2002/965/CFSP of 10 December 2002 amending and extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process(1) was extended by Council Joint Action 2003/445/CFSP(2) until 31 December 2003.

(2) Joint Action 2003/445/CFSP provides that the Council should appoint a new EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process following the resignation of Mr Miguel-Angel MORATINOS.

(3) On 14 July 2003, the Council decided to appoint Ambassador Marc OTTE as the new EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process.

(4) Joint Action 2002/965/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

Mr Marc OTTE is hereby appointed European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process.

Article 2

Article 1 of Joint Action 2002/965/CFSP and Article 2 of Joint Action 2003/445/CFSP are hereby deleted.

Article 3

This Joint Action shall enter into force on 14 July 2003.

It shall apply until 31 December 2003.

Article 4

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 July 2003.

For the Council

The President

F. Frattini

(1) OJ L 334, 11.12.2002, p. 11.

(2) OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 70.
#### William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT; James C. Fox; James C. Dever, III; Louise W. Flanagan; Terrence W. Boyle; Malcolm J. Howard; James C. Gates; Rebecca Beach Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1119

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted; May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order rejecting his post-judgment filings as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Davis v. Britt,*No. 5:16-ct-03211-BA (E.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2016). We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to remand and to appoint a guardian ad litem. 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*
#### GUANGDONG DONGYUAN KITCHENWARE INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELKAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. United States, Defendant-Appellee

2016-2637

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 13, 2017

Alexandra H. Salzman, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Gregory S. Menegaz, James Kevin Horgan.

Jeffrey Mark Telep, King *&*Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee.

Richard Paul Schroeder, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Jeanne E. Davidson, Patricia M. McCarthy; James Henry Ahrens, II, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade'Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

(Dyk, Schall, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 27 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
S. J. RES. 27

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 1995

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   To grant the consent of the Congress to certain additional powers 
    conferred upon the Bi-State Development Agency by the States of 
                         Missouri and Illinois.
Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between Missouri and Illinois 
        creating the Bi-State Development Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan 
        District provided that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State 
        Agency under the provisions of article III of such compact until such 
        power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency by the legislatures of 
        the States to the compact and approved by an Act of Congress; and
Whereas such States have now enacted certain legislation in order to confer 
        certain additional powers on such Bi-State Development Agency: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
    (a) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to the additional 
powers conferred on the Bi-State Development Agency by Senate Bill 114, 
Laws of Missouri 1993 and Public Act 88-611 (Senate Bill 1670), Laws of 
Illinois 1994.
    (b) The powers conferred by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) 
shall take effect on January 1, 1995.
    Sec. 2. The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) 
shall apply to the additional powers approved under this joint 
resolution to the same extent as if such additional powers were 
conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in such Act.
    Sec. 3. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution 
is expressly reserved.
    Sec. 4. The right is hereby reserved to the Congress to require the 
disclosure and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State 
Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by the Congress.

            Passed the Senate July 21 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 4.4

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                             THE ROUGE STEEL COMPANY
                            2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


     WHEREAS, Rouge Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), a Delaware Corporation,
adopted the Rouge Steel Company 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") for the
purpose of aligning the interests of certain officers and employees of Rouge
Steel Company with those of shareholders of the Company; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to decrease the number of
shares of Company Class A Common Stock available for award, subject to approval
by the Company's shareholders.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows, subject to approval by the Company's shareholders:

     1. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is amended effective May
15, 2002 to delete 500,000 and replace it with 450,000.

     2. Except as amended herein, the terms of the Plan remain in full force and
effect.


Dated: June 4, 2002               ROUGE INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                           By:  /s/ William E. Hornberger
                                                -------------------------
                                                William E. Hornberger
                                           Its: Senior Vice President, Corporate
                                                Relations and External Affairs
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
          OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
          ENDED December 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
          REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         60,468
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    18,118
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              117,098
<PP&E>                                        285,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                407,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,738
<BONDS>                                       230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           46
<OTHER-SE>                                    130,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  407,340
<SALES>                                        59,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,608
<CGS>                                          60,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  60,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,580)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,019)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  ($0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.13)


</TABLE>