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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 645 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 645

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide 
              career education pathways in manufacturing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide 
              career education pathways in manufacturing.

    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 ``American Manufacturing Jobs for 
Students Act''.

SEC. 2. CAREER EDUCATION PATHWAYS.

    Section 5421 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 7245) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (B);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of 
                subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) significantly engage students, in a 
                coordinated effort with local manufacturing employers, 
                teachers, students, and parents, to promote careers in 
                the manufacturing field.''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (K);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of 
                subparagraph (L) and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(M) provide students in grades 7 through 12 
                with--
                            ``(i) information on career and educational 
                        pathways leading to jobs and career 
                        opportunities in the labor markets of the 
                        geographic area of the local educational agency 
                        of the school, particularly in the 
                        manufacturing field; and
                            ``(ii) opportunities for interaction with 
                        employers of such labor markets, with 
                        preference given to employers in the 
                        manufacturing field, including opportunities to 
                        visit the workplaces of such employers to 
                        facilitate a greater understanding of the job 
                        requirements, job opportunities, and what the 
                        job entails.''.
                                 <all>
```
|   | 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year      ended September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of A5 Laboratories      Inc. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 13, 2011 | /s/ Richard      Azani            |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Richard      Azani                |   |
|                        | Principal      Accounting Officer |   |

----
#### UNDER SEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7153

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce M. Clark, Jr., David Lee Wyant, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Philip John Sbrolla, CIPRIANI *&*WER-NER, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ‘

PER CURIAM:

Under Seal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the *160magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We .have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Under Seal v. Under Seal,*No. 5:15-cv-00162-FPS-JES (N.D. W. Va. June 19, 2017). 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*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael S. Leto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2006-1 Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2015



|       |  |                            
|------ |  | ---------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Michael S. Leto        
|Name:  |  | Michael S. Leto            
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and
|       |  | Executive Vice President   

|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|(Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the Depositor)
#### Jeffrey Scott QUINTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNKNOWN AGENTS, Fort Worth Police; S. Kelm, Fort Worth Police Officer; City of Fort Worth, Texas, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-10053 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 9, 2018

Jeffrey Scott Quintana, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) and Federal Rule of Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), the notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within thirty days of entry of judgment. In this civil rights case filed by a state prisoner, the district court entered a final judgment on November 2, 2016. Therefore, the final day for filing a timely notice of appeal was December 2, 2016. *See*§ 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Quintana’s pro se notice of appeal was postmarked January 9, 2017. *See Brown v. Taylor,*829 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2016).

Section 2107 and Rule 4, however, provide that the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for 14 days if it finds that the moving party did not receive notice of the judgment appealed within 21 days of entry, the motion to reopen is filed within the earlier of 180 days after the judgment or 14 days after the party receives notice of its entry, and the court finds that no party would be prejudiced by the appeal. § 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). In a pleading signed January 5, 2017, Quintana referenced the district court order, suggested that he may not have timely received a copy of the order, and identified errors in the district court opinion and order. The district court did not address this pleading, Quintana’s receipt of the judgment, or the timeliness of the notice of appeal.

We treat the pleading signed January 5, 2017, which Quintana characterized as an affidavit, as his notice of appeal and request to reopen the time for appeal. *See Bailey v. Cain,*609 F.3d 763, 765 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court to determine the circumstances under which Quintana received notice that final judgment had been entered, when he received that notice, when he placed his notice of appeal and motion to reopen in the prison mail system, and *203whether any party would be prejudiced by Quintana’s appeal. Upon making these findings, the district court shall return the case to this court for further proceedings, or dismissal, as may be appropriate. The motion for appointment of counsel is held in abeyance with the appeal.

REMANDED.

*

 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.
# L_2004381DE.01008701.xml

| 28.12.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 381/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 381/87

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1383/2003 des Rates vom 22. Juli 2003 über das Vorgehen der Zollbehörden gegen Waren, die im Verdacht stehen, bestimmte Rechte geistigen Eigentums zu verletzen, und die Maßnahmen gegenüber Waren, die erkanntermaßen derartige Rechte verletzen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 196 vom 2. August 2003
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 196 vom 2. August 2003

Auf Seite 8, im 12. Erwägungsgrund:

anstatt:

„..., um eine möglichst hohe Effizienz dieser Richtlinie zu gewährleisten, ...“

muss es heißen:

„..., um eine möglichst hohe Effizienz dieser Verordnung zu gewährleisten, ...“

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00269- CR
Daniel Lop ez C ardoza, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 331 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 12- 2018 77, TH E H ONO RAB LE DAVID CRAIN, J UDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

The repor ter’s rec ord in this cause was due to be fi l ed on August 8, 2013. On September 4, 2013, this Court’s cler k sent notice to the court repor ter, Raquel Koche r, informing her that the repor

ter’s rec ord in this cause was overdue , direc ting her to file the repor ter’s rec ord no later than September

16, 2013, and advising her that if she failed to f ile the re cord or

explain in writi ng the rea son for her delay , the matter would be ref err ed to the Court for an order
. To date, Koche r has not tendere d the re cord or otherwise r esponded to this Court’s notice. We here by order Koche r to prepa re and tender the repor

ter’s rec ord for filing in this
cause no later tha

n October 25, 2013. It is so ordered on this the 11th day of Oc tober, 2013.Be fore Justices Puryear , Rose, and Goodwin

Do Not Publish

2
#### IN RE: DEMAS WAI YAN, Esquire, Debtor. Crystal Lei, Appellant, v. Demas Wai Yan, Esquire; Cheuk. Tin Yan, Appellees.

No. 15-60019

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

*583Crystal Lei, Pro Se

Mark W. Laphara, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark W. Lapham, Danville, CA, for Appellees

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Crystal Lei appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Lei’s motion to sanction chapter 7 debtor Demas Wai Yan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Lei’s request for attorney’s fees incurred while defending against Yan’s state court actions asserting pre-petition claims because Lei lacks standing to challenge violations of the automatic stay. *See Tilley v. Vucurevich (In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.),*951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991) (the debtor and trustee are the only legal beneficiaries of the automatic stay); *cf. Magnoni v. Globe Inv. & Loan Co. (In re Globe Inv. & Loan Co.),*867 F.2d 556, 560 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that parties with interests adverse to the bankruptcy estate do not have standing to enforce the automatic stay).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise its inherent authority to sanction Yan based on his misconduct before another court. *See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,*501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (setting forth standard of review).

The BAP properly concluded that bankruptcy courts lack authority to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because bankruptcy courts are not “court[s] of the United States” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. *See Perroton v. Gray (In re Perroton),*958 F.2d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 1992).

Lei’s request seeking relief from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

Lei’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is also denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief
Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.

|                  |                                                              
|----------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|December 17, 2007 | /s/ Michael L. Krall
Michael L. Krall
Chief Executive Officer

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

EXHIBIT 10.21    
  



	

032402	
 	

License Reference No. L003859





        AMENDMENT
("Amendment") dated as of March 24, 2002 to the License Agreement (L003859) with an Effective Date of January 1, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement")
between INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, a New York corporation ("IBM"), and ADAPTEC, INC., a Delaware corporation ("ADAPTEC"). 


        The
parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement to extend its term through July 1, 2007. The parties also desire to amend the Payment Schedule of Section 4 of the
Agreement. 


        In
consideration of the premises and covenants herein contained, IBM and ADAPTEC agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 



	1)
	In
Section 1.3 (a) change "July 1, 2004" to —July 1, 2007—.



	2)
	In
Section 1.8, change "July 1, 2004" to —July 1, 2007—.



	3)
	In
Section 1.8, change "July 1, 2005" to —July 1, 2008—.



	4)
	In
Section 1.8, change "June 30, 2004" to —June 30, 2007—.



	5)
	In
Section 4.1, change "eleven million US dollars ($11,000,000.00)" to—thirteen million two hundred fifty thousand US dollars ($13,250,000.00)—.



	6)
	In
Section 4.1, add the following new subsection:

—4.1.2.1 two million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($2,250,000.00) due upon signature of the Amendment dated March 24, 2002."—.



	7)
	In
Section 4.5, change "June 30, 2004" to —June 30, 2007—.



	8)
	In
Section 5.1, change "July 1, 2004" to —July 1, 2007—.



	9)
	In
Section 7.13, change "July 1, 2004" to —July 1, 2007—. 




        This
Amendment may be executed by the parties in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


        This
Amendment shall be effective upon receipt of the consideration specified in paragraph 6 above and as of the date signed herein below. 



        Except
as amended by this Amendment, all the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties under the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect as set out therein. 



	Agreed to:

ADAPTEC, INC.	 	Agreed to:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

MACHINES CORPORATION
	

By	
 	

 	
 	

By	
 	

 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	

	Name	 	 	 	 	 	Daniel O'Donnell
	 	 	
	 	 	 	Vice President,
	Title	 	 	 	 	 	Assistant General Counsel & Secretary
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 
	Date	 	 	 	Date	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	





(Signature
Page for IBM/Adaptec Amendment to License Agreement No. L003859) 


1









QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.21
#### Fatou NJIE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1386

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 23, 2017

Decided: November 9, 2017

Evelyn R. G. Smallwood, HATCH ROCKERS IMMIGRATION, Durham, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rachel Browning, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fatou Njie, a native and citizen of Gambia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Njie’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that'substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Njie*(B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
RFS 2015 NPRM 5/8/15 STEO March 2015 calculations from EIA 5/15/15 2013Vessel bunkering - dist (EIA-821) Table I.A-3 and V.B.3-1 2014 2015 2016 2017 US1,655,258k gal EIA-821 released 1/15/15 Proposed Volume Requirements Bill gal Bill gal Bill gal Bill gal STEO March 2015 (Sean pull) 2014 2015 2016 AK 113,640k gal Cellulosic biofuel 0.033 0.106 0.203 Gasoline consumption (MMBD) 8.92 9 8.94 6.9%AK % US Biomass-based diesel 1.63 1.7 1.8 1.9 Ethanol (MMBD) 0.88 0.88 0.87 Advanced biofuels 2.68 2.9 3.4 Diesel Product Supplied (MMbd) 3.649 3.758 3.829 Renewable fuel 15.93 16.3 17.4 Biodiesel Consumption (MMbd) 0.100 0.101 0.100

Table I.B.5-1 and V.B.3-2 2014 2015 2016 Propsed Percentage Standards % % % Cellulosic biofuel 0.019 0.059 0.113 Biomass-based diesel 1.42 1.42 1.5 Advanced biofuels 1.52 1.61 1.89 Renewable fuel 9.02 9.08 9.67 2014 2015 2016 

### Table VI.B.3-1 calculations, p. 99 EIA's calcs 2014 EIA's calcs 2015 EIA's calcs 2016 

### 2014 US -oceanEPA's calcs 

### 2015US -oceanEPA's calcs 

### 2016US -oceanEPA's calcs US (STEO) calc. AK (SEDS 2013) AKe oceanAK-oceanUS ocean (AEO2014)-AK-oc calcEPA RVO terms US (STEO) calc. -AK-oc calcRVO terms US (STEO) calc.-AK-oc calcRVO terms Term MMBD Bill Gal MM Bbl Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal Trill Btu Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal MMBD Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal MMBD Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal G 8.92 136.744 6.505 0.273 136.47 136.42 9 137.970 137.70 137.63 8.94137.426 137.15 136.82 D 3.649 55.946 5.55 0.233 0.039 0.194 78.300 0.565 55.19 55.07 3.758 57.610 56.85 56.88 3.829 58.859 58.10 57.97 RG 0.88 13.490 0.528 0.0222 13.47 13.39 0.88 13.490 13.47 13.4 0.87 13.374 13.35 13.31 RD 0.100 1.539 1.54 1.52 0.101 1.548 1.55 1.55 0.100 1.543 1.54 1.53 GE 0.01 0.00 0.00 GD 0.04 0.00 0.00

2014V.B.3-2, p.100 2015V.B.3-2, p.100 2016V.B.3-2, p.100 I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16 I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16 I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16 EPA EPA Recalc EIA if only 2 digits EPA EPA Recalc EIAif only 2 digits EPA EPA Recalc EIAif only 2 digits Final % Std Bill gal % std % std % std Bill gal % std % std % std Bill gal % std % std % std Cellulosic biofuel 0.033 0.019% 0.019% 0.02% 0.1060.059% 0.059% 0.06% 0.203 0.113%0.113% 0.11% Biomass-based diesel 1.67 1.42% 1.418% 1.42% 1.7 1.42% 1.420% 1.42% 1.8 1.50% 1.497% 1.50% Advanced biofuels 2.68 1.52% 1.517% 1.52% 2.9 1.61% 1.615% 1.62% 3.4 1.89% 1.885% 1.89% Renewable fuel 15.93 9.02% 9.018% 9.02% 16.3 9.08% 9.079% 9.08% 17.4 9.67%9.647% 9.65%

Source: STEOMarch 2015 , AK (SEDS 2013), AEO 2015, calculations from EIA-821. U.S. vessel bunkering (inc. coastal) in 2013: 1.655 bill gal. AK: 0.114 bill gal. AK = 6.9% of U.S. vessel bunkering. AK est ocean = 0.565* 0.069 = 0.039 AEO2015 Table 50. Freight Transportation, International Shipping: Distillate/Diesel in 2013 (78.3 tril Btu), 1 gal=138,690 Btu
SEDS 2013 updates Motor Gasoline Revised 12/23/2014 Fuel Ethanol Revised 12/23/2014 Distillate Fuel Oil Released 03/13/2015 No diesel or biodiesel