alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
jQuery(document).ready(function($) {
  if ($("body:not(.path-admin) [data-animate-effect]").length>0) {
    $("body:not(.path-admin) [data-animate-effect]").each(function() {
      var thisObject = $(this);
      var animation = thisObject.attr("data-animate-effect");
      if(animation != "no-animation") {
        var waypoints = thisObject.waypoint(function(direction) {
          var animatedObject = $(this.element);
          setTimeout(function() {
            animatedObject.addClass("animated " + animation);
          }, 100);
          this.destroy();
        },{
          offset: "90%"
        });
      }
    });
  }
})
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Threat Reduction Agency
                    Defense Threat Reduction Agency
            Search
                        Search Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Threat Reduction Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    About
    
        DTRA Leadership

    DTRA History

    Mission

    Strategic Initiatives

    Foreign Malign Influence

    Agency Overview Brief (pdf)

    Agency Financial Report

    Careers & Opportunities
    
        Your Civilian Career

    Your Military Career

    Welcome Aboard

    Diversity and Inclusion

    Business
    
        DTRA Contract Award Data

    Office of Small Business

    Mentor Protege Program

    News & Media
    
        Press Center

    Contact Us

    Joint Operations Center  DTRA News
 Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 DTRA’s Biological Threat Reduction Program and the Tripartite Health Organizations conduct workshop on Zoonotic Workforce Development. By Andrea Chaney
                Defense Threat Reduction Agency
 ALMATY, Kazakhstan           www.dtra.mil
 SHARE
 PRINT
 
 ABOUT DTRA DTRA provides cross-cutting solutions to enable the Department of Defense, the United States Government, and international partners to deter strategic attack against the United States and its allies; prevent, reduce, and counter WMD and emerging threats; and prevail against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict.
 LEARN MORE News & Media»
 News Articles»
 Operating Status»
 Careers and Opportunities»
 Directions to DTRA»
 DTRA Operations Center»
 FOIA/Privacy»
 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office»
 Accessibility»
 IG Hotline »
 No Fear Act Data»
 Information Quality»
 CONNECT WITH US
 MORE LINKS USA.gov»
 DTRA Careers»
 Open Government»
 Plain Writing»
 DoD »
 Privacy & Security»
 508 Accessibility»
 External Link Disclaimer»
 DoD Web Policy»
  8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060-6221 Welcome to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s website. If you are looking for the official source of information about the DoD Web Policy, please visit https://dodcio.defense.gov/DoD-Web-Policy/. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency is pleased to participate in this open forum in order to increase government transparency, promote public participation, and encourage collaboration. Please note that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency does not endorse the comments or opinions provided by visitors to this site. The protection, control, and legal aspects of any information that you provided to establish your account or information that you may choose to share here is governed by the terms of service or use between you and the website. Visit the Defense Threat Reduction Agency contact page at Contact Us for information on how to send official correspondence. Site Map »
 Stay Connected
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8668 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to include the KIA, MIA, and POW acronyms on headstones 

and markers furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2020 

Mr. KELLY of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include the KIA, MIA, 

and POW acronyms on headstones and markers furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF KIA, MIA, AND POW ACRONYMS 

4 ON HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FURNISHED 

5 BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Section 2306(c) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8668 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A headstone or marker fur2 nished’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) A headstone or marker 

3 furnished’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary shall permit the following 

7 acronyms to be included on a headstone or marker under 

8 subsection (a), (b), or (d) of this section: 

9 ‘‘(i) ‘KIA’ for an individual killed in action. 

10 ‘‘(ii) ‘MIA’ for an individual who was missing 

11 in action. 

12 ‘‘(iii) ‘POW’ for an individual who was a pris13 oner of war. 

14 ‘‘(B) The Secretary may not count an acronym in15 cluded on a headstone or marker under subparagraph (A) 

16 towards any character or line limit for such headstone or 

17 marker.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Bobby Joe GIPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-5333

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed February 07, 2018

Tyrone Jemal Paylor, Federal Public Defender, Memphis, TN, for Petitioner-Appellant

Bobby Joe Gipson, Pro Se

Kevin G. Ritz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge

Bobby Gipson challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a prison sentence he received nearly 20 years ago. He contends that he was sentenced under the “residual clause” of the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, which required higher sentences for defendants with at least two prior convictions for crimes involving “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (1997). In *Johnson v. United States,*the Supreme Court found unconstitutionally vague an identically worded *698clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act. — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Gipson argues that sentences decided under the Guidelines’ residual clause when that clause was still *mandatory*— i.e., as binding on courts as the Armed Career Criminal Act — are likewise unconstitutional under *Johnson.*

That argument comes to us in the context of a § 2255 motion, so Gipson’s motion is untimely unless *Johnson*recognized a new right that applies retroactively to him on collateral review. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). The problem, then, is that *Johnson*dealt only with the Armed Career Criminal Act, not with' the Guidelines, *See Welch v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016). That leaves defendants sentenced under the Guidelines’ residual clause — even when that clause was mandatory — without “a ‘right’ that ‘has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court’ let alone one that was ‘made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.’ ” *Raybon v. United States,*867 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting § 2255(f)(3)).

We acknowledge the irony that a defendant in a similar position to that of the defendant in *Johnson*seems unable even to seek the same relief. But the fact of the matter is that Gipson can seek relief under § 2255(f)(3) only if the Supreme Court recognizes a new right that applies retroactively to him. And per *Raybon*the Court has not yet done so.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-212-CV

JEREMY SCOTT BURKETT	APPELLANT

	V.

DANIEL R. LEGAULT, AND 							 APPELLEES 

FANTASY RANCH, INC. BY							

AND THROUGH HARRY FREEMAN

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

	FROM THE 348TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Jeremy Scott Burkett attempts to appeal from a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Fantasy Ranch, Inc.  On June 25, 2007, we notified Appellant that we were concerned that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order granting summary judgment in favor of Fantasy Ranch, Inc. is a partial summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties in the case, and it does not appear to be a final judgment or an interlocutory order.  See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001).  Additionally, we informed Appellant that the trial court had confirmed that no severance order has been signed severing Appellant’s case against Fantasy Ranch, Inc. from Appellant’s case against Daniel R. Legault.  We also informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response to the jurisdiction letter.

	Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 2, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       6,267,976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,828,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,121,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,448,533
<PP&E>                                      19,681,090
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,652,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,217,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,806,975
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,148
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,707,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,217,641
<SALES>                                     12,789,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,323,916
<CGS>                                        5,803,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,803,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,333,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,694,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,694,013)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,694,013)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.23)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021217EN.01006702.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/67

---

Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Groschopp v EUIPO (Sustainability through Quality)

(Case T-212/21)

(2021/C 217/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groschopp AG Drives & More (Viersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sustainability through Quality — Application for registration No 18 158 368

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1076/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1479V Filed: September 25, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

ANGELINA CAVALLO and MATTHEW POLANCO on behalf of M.P., a minor child,

Petitioners,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. Ilene Clair Albala, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On October 10, 2017, Ange lina Cavallo and Matthew Polanco (“petitioners”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”) on behalf of their minor child, M.P. Petitioners allege that M.P. suffered Guillain-B arré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 3, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 On September 25, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioners are entitled to compens ation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioners have satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revi sed Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioners a presumption of causation for M.P.’s alleged injury if the onset of GBS occurs between three and fortytwo days after a seasonal flu vaccination a nd there is no apparent alternative cause .”
Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “M.P. suffered the residual effects of his
condition for more than six months...” and “based on the record as it now stands, petitioners have satisfied a ll legal prerequisites for co mpensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
# C_2021252EN.01002902.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/29

---

Action brought on 5 May 2021 — Varabei v Council

(Case T-245/21)

(2021/C 252/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mikalai Mikalevich Varabei (Novopolotsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Kremslehner, H. Kühnert, lawyers, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul with immediate effect Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul with immediate effect Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (2).

| — | order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging manifest errors of assessment. The applicant invokes that the Council has not explained how the applicant’s business interests demonstrate either that the applicant benefits from or that that he supports the Lukashenka regime. To the contrary, the applicant's interests in the petroleum, coal transit and banking sectors are not of a type or magnitude that would indicate that the applicant supports or benefits from the regime in any way.

In addition, the applicant claims that his listing cannot be sustained on the basis that he is the co-owner of Bremino Group. The latter has not received any selective tax benefits nor other forms of support from the Belarusian administration.

---

(1)  OJ L 68, 26.2.2021, p. 189.

(2)  OJ L 68, 26.2.2021, p. 29.

---
Order filed, September 09, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00724

- CR

____________ DAVID JAMES SIMMON S , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 1400879



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due July 28, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Becau se the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Pam Knobloch , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
No. 11-8401.

#### Tomlin *v.*Glunt, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,721
<PP&E>                                         128,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,413
<BONDS>                                         56,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,388
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,106
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,539
<INCOME-TAX>                                       835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,704
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,332
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10006.

#### Fuentes *v.*Gonzalez, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.