alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021029DE.01003401.xml

| 28.1.2021 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 29/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2021

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 29/34

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2368/2002 des Rates vom 20. Dezember 2002 zur Umsetzung des Zertifikationssystems des Kimberley-Prozesses für den internationalen Handel mit Rohdiamanten

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 358 vom 31. Dezember 2002
  )

Seite 29, Artikel 2 Buchstabe d

Anstatt:

| „d) | ‚Zertifikat‘ ein von einem Teilnehmer ordnungsgemäß ausgestelltes und durch eine zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers bestätigtes Dokument, das eine Rohdiamantensendung als mit dem KP-Zertifikationssystem in Einklang stehend identifiziert,“ |
| --- | --- |

„d)

‚Zertifikat‘ ein von einem Teilnehmer ordnungsgemäß ausgestelltes und durch eine zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers bestätigtes Dokument, das eine Rohdiamantensendung als mit dem KP-Zertifikationssystem in Einklang stehend identifiziert,“

muss es heißen:

| „d) | ‚Zertifikat‘ ein von einer zuständigen Behörde eines Teilnehmers ordnungsgemäß ausgestelltes und bestätigtes Dokument, das eine Rohdiamantensendung als mit dem KP-Zertifikationssystem in Einklang stehend identifiziert,“. |
| --- | --- |

„d)

‚Zertifikat‘ ein von einer zuständigen Behörde eines Teilnehmers ordnungsgemäß ausgestelltes und bestätigtes Dokument, das eine Rohdiamantensendung als mit dem KP-Zertifikationssystem in Einklang stehend identifiziert,“.

Seite 30, Artikel 5 Absatz 3

Anstatt:

| „(3) | Eine Gemeinschaftsbehörde unterrichtet innerhalb eines Monats die Kommission und die zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers, die nach ihren Angaben das Zertifikat für die Sendung ausgestellt oder bestätigt hat, über die Nichterfüllung der Voraussetzungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

muss es heißen:

| „(3) | Eine Gemeinschaftsbehörde unterrichtet innerhalb eines Monats die Kommission und die zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers, die angeblich das Zertifikat für die Sendung ausgestellt oder bestätigt hat, über die Nichterfüllung der Voraussetzungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

Seite 32, Artikel 14 Absatz 3

Anstatt:

| „(3) | Die Gemeinschaftsbehörde unterrichtet innerhalb eines Monats die Kommission und die zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers, die nach ihren Angaben das Zertifikat für die Sendung ausgestellt oder bestätigt hat, über die Nichterfüllung der Voraussetzungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

muss es heißen:

| „(3) | Die Gemeinschaftsbehörde unterrichtet innerhalb eines Monats die Kommission und die zuständige Behörde des Teilnehmers, die angeblich das Zertifikat für die Sendung ausgestellt oder bestätigt hat, über die Nichterfüllung der Voraussetzungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

---
#### Janell GOMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-16754

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

*568Janell Gomes, Pro Se

Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elena. 0, Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-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 **

This matter has been stayed since February 2, 2015 pending resolution of *Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*No. 10-56884, *Park v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB,*No. 11-65473, or *Park v. Quality Loan Service Corp.,*No. 12-56450, or further order of the court. We hereby lift the stay. j

Janell Gomes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gomes’s action because Gomes failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*656 U.S. 662, 678, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is. plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5989 

To provide for continuing cooperation between the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and the Israel Space Agency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Mr. 

VEASEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To provide for continuing cooperation between the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Israel 

Space Agency, 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 ‘‘United States and 

5 Israel Space Cooperation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 

8 (1) authorized in 1958, the National Aero9 nautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5989 IH

1 and coordinates United States Government research 

2 in aeronautics, human exploration and operations, 

3 science, and space technology; 

4 (2) established in 1983, the Israel Space Agen5 cy (ISA) supports the growth of Israel’s space indus6 try by supporting academic research, technological 

7 innovation, and educational activities; 

8 (3) the mutual interest of the United States 

9 and Israel in space exploration affords both nations 

10 an opportunity to leverage their unique abilities to 

11 advance scientific discovery; 

12 (4) in 1996, NASA and the ISA entered into 

13 their first agreement outlining areas of mutual co14 operation, which remained in force until 2005; 

15 (5) since 1996, NASA and the ISA have suc16 cessfully cooperated on many space programs sup17 porting the Global Positioning System and research 

18 related to the sun, earth science, and the environ19 ment; 

20 (6) the bond between NASA and the ISA was 

21 permanently forged on February 1, 2003, with the 

22 loss of the crew of STS–107 including Israeli Astro23 naut Ilan Ramon; 

24 (7) the United States-Israel Strategic Partner25 ship Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) designated 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5989 IH

1 Israel as a Major Strategic Partner of the United 

2 States; and 

3 (8) on October 13, 2015, the United States and 

4 Israel signed the Framework Agreement between the 

5 National Aeronautics and Space Administration of 

6 the United States of America and the Israel Space 

7 Agency for Cooperation in Aeronautics and the Ex8 ploration and Use of Airspace and Outer Space for 

9 Peaceful Purposes. 

10 SEC. 3. CONTINUING COOPERATION. 

11 The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

12 Space Administration shall continue to work with the 

13 Israel Space Agency to identify and cooperatively pursue 

14 peaceful space exploration and science initiatives in areas 

15 of mutual interest. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[2/26/2022 through 3/13/2022]
Firm name
Firm address
Date accepted for investigation
Product(s)Prospect Life Sciences, Inc
11025 Dover Street, Westminster, CO 80021
3/1/2022
The company manufactures medical devices.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director.


[FR Doc. 2022-05701 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Greenhaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);
   Date: March 14, 2011
    /s/ Ashmead PringleAshmead PringleChief Executive Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 100th District Court of Carson County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on June 22,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Desiree Nicole Romero v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-15-00036-CR Trial Court Number: 4898

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated June 22, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 100th District

Court of Carson County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with this Court’s

opinion entered this day.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on June 22, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Leo YANCEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1908

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 24, 2017

Filed: December 11, 2017

*476Lisa C. Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

William Leo Yancey, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Yancey appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court1 sentenced him to 188 months in prison, a term within the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Yancey’s prison term. Yancey has not filed a supplemental brief.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. *See United States v. David,*682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); *see also United States v. Callaway,*762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines sentence may be presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
Kang Chungmai, certify, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Tsingda eEdu Corporation for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Tsingda eEdu Corporation.

|                      |        |                              
|--------------------- | ------ | -----------------------------
|                      | By:    | /s/ Kang Chungmai            
|                      |        |                              
|Date: March
 11, 2011 | Name:  | Kang
 Chungmai               
|                      | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |        | (Principal Financial Officer)

---
#### IN RE: Matthew J. MEDLIN, Petitioner.

No. 17-2281

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 21, 2017

Matthew J. Medlin, Petitioner Pro Se.

*133Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Matthew J. Medlin has filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking release from jail and dismissal of an indictment issued in Wake County, North Carolina. We ordinarily decline to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case presents no reason to depart from this practice. Because Medlin appears to be awaiting trial in Wake County and has failed to exhaust the remedies available in the North Carolina courts, we conclude that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the district court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2241(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Medlin’s motion for an emergency hearing, and dismiss the petition. 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 DISMISSED*
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 880

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United

States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 5, 1995

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used

by the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1498(a) of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of

6 the first paragraph the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire

7 compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs,

8 including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attor9 neys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent

10 inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had
2

•S 880 IS

1 no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-

2 year period preceding the use or manufacture of the pat3 ented invention by or for the United States.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply to actions under section 1498(a)

6 of title 28, United States Code, that are pending on, or

7 brought on or after, January 1, 1995.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roger Wayne LANGSTON, also known as Big Country, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10041 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 13, 2017

*375Emily Baker Falconer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Steven Bush, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Wayne Langston appeals the 480-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We need not decide whether to apply plain error review because Langston’s arguments fail to show any .abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008). He asserts that his sentence was much higher than the average drug trafficking sentences, but he does not demonstrate that these average sentences involved similarly situated defendants. *See United States v. Simpson,*796 F.3d 548, 559 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court was aware of the guidelines calculations, the applicable statutory ranges, and Langston’s mitigating arguments but decided to impose a sentence within the guidelines range. The district court cited the length and seriousness of Langston’s criminal history and emphasized his use of violence. “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Langston’s argument that the mitigating factors presented for the court’s consideration should have been balanced differently is “insufficient to disturb” the presumption of reasonableness that applies to his lengthy-but-within-guidelines sentence. *United States v. Alvarado,*691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); *see Simpson,*796 F.3d at 559-60. Moreover, his challenge to the reasonableness of or deference owed to the drug quantity guideline is foreclosed. *See id.*at 560.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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.

| |                                         
| | ----------------------------------------
| | /s/ William J. Hemelt                   
| |                                         
| | William J. Hemelt                       
| | Executive Vice President, Chief         
| | Financial Officer, Treasurer & Secretary

Dated August 14, 2003