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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8705 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8705

     To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants to 
 institutions of higher education to develop programs and materials to 
educate students who have a substance use disorder on treatment options 
               for such disorder, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2020

   Ms. Dean introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants to 
 institutions of higher education to develop programs and materials to 
educate students who have a substance use disorder on treatment options 
               for such disorder, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Education for New Dispositions on 
Stigma Act'' or ``END Stigma Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM TO EDUCATE STUDENTS ON SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER 
              TREATMENT OPTIONS.

    Part D of title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 553. GRANT PROGRAM TO EDUCATE STUDENTS ON SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER 
              TREATMENT OPTIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to institutions 
of higher education to develop programs and materials to--
            ``(1) educate students who have a substance use disorder on 
        treatment options for such disorder;
            ``(2) reduce stigmas with respect to substance use 
        disorders; and
            ``(3) refer students to substance use disorder treatment 
        providers and facilities.
    ``(b) Grant Number.--An institution of higher education may not 
receive more than 1 grant under this section.
    ``(c) Grant Period.--The period of a grant under this section shall 
be 3 years.
    ``(d) Grant Amount.--The amount of a grant under this section shall 
not exceed $100,000.
    ``(e) Institution of Higher Education Defined.--In this section, 
the term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given that 
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
    ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2021 through 2024.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2008 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
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 represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results 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.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: August 8, 2008
# C_2023155EN.01002301.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Graz — Austria) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and execution of a European Investigation Order concerning MS

(Case C-16/22, (1) Staatsanwaltschaft Graz (Düsseldorf Tax Office for Criminal Tax Matters))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial authority’ - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘issuing authority’ - Order issued by a tax authority without being validated by a judge or public prosecutor - Tax authority assuming the rights and the obligations of the public prosecutor’s office in the context of a criminal tax investigation)

(2023/C 155/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Graz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MS

other parties: Staatsanwaltschaft Graz, Finanzamt für Steuerstrafsachen und Steuerfahndung Düsseldorf

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | a tax authority of a Member State which, while being part of the executive of that Member State, conducts, in accordance with national law, criminal tax investigations autonomously, instead of the public prosecutor’s office and assuming the rights and the obligations vested in the latter, cannot be classified as a ‘judicial authority’ and an ‘issuing authority’, within the meaning, respectively, of each of those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

a tax authority of a Member State which, while being part of the executive of that Member State, conducts, in accordance with national law, criminal tax investigations autonomously, instead of the public prosecutor’s office and assuming the rights and the obligations vested in the latter, cannot be classified as a ‘judicial authority’ and an ‘issuing authority’, within the meaning, respectively, of each of those provisions;

| — | such an authority is, on the other hand, capable of falling within the concept of an ‘issuing authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(c)(ii) of that directive, provided that the conditions set out in that provision are met. |
| --- | --- |

—

such an authority is, on the other hand, capable of falling within the concept of an ‘issuing authority’ within the meaning of Article 2(c)(ii) of that directive, provided that the conditions set out in that provision are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________ ________________

No. 14

- 14253

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cv

- 00574

- GAP

- TBS

PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL

UNION NO. 803 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND,

Plaintiff

- Counter Defendant

- Appellee,

DAVID GARLINGTON,

as Trustee for the Funds,

GAR Y MONSON,

as Trustee for the Funds,

BRAD GRABILL,

as Trustee for the Funds,

BERNARD HORNE,

as Trustee for the Funds, et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

versus

SYSTEM TECH SERVICES, INC.

, a Florida Corporation,

Defendant

- Counter Claimant

- Appellant.

Case: 14-14253 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Page: 1 of 22 ________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

______________ __________

(January 5, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, * District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

After considering the parties’ briefs and entertaining oral argument of

counsel, we find no basis for disturbing the judgment of the Dist rict Court. The

judgment is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

* The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation. Case: 14-14253 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Page: 2 of 2
#### Bernardino Eudoxio SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, *v.*Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72649

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Pasquale Lombardo, Attorney, Law Offices of Pasquale Lombardo, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner

Justin Robert Markel, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bernardino Eudoxio Santiago-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santiago-Ramirez’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Santiago-Ramirez did not provide sufficient evidence to show he had been prejudiced by the performance of former counsel. *See id.*at 793-94 (prejudice results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it *may*have affected the outcome of the proceedings”). His claims involving two notarios also fail. *See Hernandez v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1014, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “knowing reliance upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel”).

Contrary to Santiago-Ramirez’s contention, the BIA did not utilize an improper legal standard in its prejudice analysis. His contentions that the BIA misstated facts and ignored evidence or relevant precedent are not supported by the record.

In his opening brief, Santiago-Ramirez fails to challenge the BIA’s discretionary denial of his motion to reopen, which is dispositive with respect to his request for reopening based on changed country conditions. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94*F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned); *see also Sequeira-Solano v. INS,*104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir. *8651997) (“The BIA considered all of the relevant circumstances in [petitioner’s] case and decided that a favorable exercise of its discretion in this case was not warranted.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Frank LOPEZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Giraldo Lopez, Magaly Nunez-Delgado, individually and as assignee of Michelle Soto, Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross Appellants, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant Cross Appellee.

No. 16-16506

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 7, 2018)

*862Meghan Moore, Gabriela R. Pirana, Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, PA, Miami, FL, W. Allen Bonner, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants

Kansas R. Gooden, Jane Anderson, Boyd *&*Jenerette, PA, Jacksonville, FL, Andrew Abramovich, Fleming Island, FL, for Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee

Before MARCUS, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises ■ out of a seven-day jury trial concerning claims for bad faith under Florida common law. Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants Frank Lopez, as executor for the estate of Giraldo Lopez (“Lopez’s estate”), and Magaly Nunez-Delgado, individually and as assignee of Michelle Soto, brought these claims against Appellant/Cross-Appellee Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding that Allstate did not act in bad faith by failing to settle the claim of Lopez’s estate but that it acted in bad faith by failing to the settle the claim of Magaly Nunez-Delgado. Subsequent to trial, the district court entered a final judgment in favor of Allstate against Lopez’s estate and in favor of Nunez-Delgado against Allstate.

In an omnibus order filed thereafter, the district court denied various post-trial motions filed by the parties. The district court later amended its judgment to include, inter alia, damages for Nunez-Delgado in the amount of $315,000.00, plus prejudgment interest of $40,486.59.

Allstate appeals the district court’s final judgment, omnibus order, and amended final judgment entered in favor of Nunez-Delgado. Lopez’s estate and Nunez-Delgado appeal the district court’s omnibus- order and amended final judgment claiming, inter alia, that the district court’s jury charge and verdict form erroneously separated the claim into two bad faith claims, and that Nunez-Delgado is entitled to prejudgment interest from an earlier date.

After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in any of the district court’s rulings or its jury instructions and affirm the final judgment, the amended final judgment, and the omnibus order.

AFFIRMED.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-156V

Filed: September 9, 2013

Not for publication

*************************************

ELIZABETH HOLLAND, *

* 

 Petitioner, * 

* Attorneys’ fees and costs decision

v. * based on stipulation of fact

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 * 

Respondent. *

*

************************************* 

Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On August 22, 2013, petitioner filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Petitioner requested $11,503.60 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 22, 2013, in accordance

with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner filed a statement indicating that she incurred

$150.25 in pursuit of her claim. 

 

1Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims's website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 

2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be 

made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that 

is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify 

and move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon 

review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special 

master shall redact such material from public access.
2

On September 6, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of facts in which they agreed on this 

amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. The undersigned finds the amount reasonable. 

Accordingly, the court awards:

a. $11,503.60, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award 

shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer & 

Chin-Caplan, P.C. in the amount of $11,503.60; and

b. $150.25, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check payable to petitioner.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Encina Power Plant Fuel Use

Tom W. Andrews 

t

o

:

Shaheerah Kelly 03/23/2010 01:25 PM

Cc: "Tom W. Andrews"

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Ms. Kelly:

As requested recently, enclosed is the monthly fuel use for Encina Power Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 for the 

period from 2002 to 2006. If you still need monthly fuel use for other years, it will take me more time.
Annual Fuel Use, MMscf

Boiler 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Unit 1 1640.00 1275.94 1734.26 1661.66 551.76Unit 2 2060.80 1673.01 2510.69 1823.74 1070.37Unit 3 2145.81 2393.43 3805.04 2107.76 1319.23Total 5846.60 5342.38 8049.98 5593.16 2941.36Monthly Fuel Use, MMscf

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 

January 185.94 105.32 76.47 54.43 145.81 137.00 19.78 116.03 0.00 0.00 19.83 298.91 February 302.35 38.71 301.27 143.67 35.54 293.80 0.00 371.82 153.90 249.85 333.29 249.42 March 203.88 0.00 173.11 263.84 20.07 110.21 74.82 513.67 340.87 285.07 208.12 11.52 April 37.21 97.31 50.24 391.17 92.57 38.04 326.89 187.71 479.03 161.38 70.75 52.05 May 0.00 302.10 122.71 52.40 0.00 84.65 304.03 167.81 25.55 0.00 24.90 247.15 June 76.37 307.26 109.22 113.60 39.60 79.43 54.28 69.54 168.91 86.76 186.33 31.92 July 277.43 91.36 95.71 96.82 173.60 314.62 101.69 171.57 194.71 217.95 428.34 197.31 August 128.24 30.78 91.58 164.18 8.03 279.09 274.92 123.00 102.90 14.35 377.73 312.14 September 125.73 0.00 258.70 99.81 36.53 253.44 90.04 182.12 36.69 13.91 367.98 404.11 October 86.80 61.68 168.62 26.96 0.00 95.35 186.91 271.72 46.52 34.72 107.77 125.29 November 42.92 10.03 276.41 228.13 0.00 92.77 30.54 258.85 263.24 0.00 0.00 180.00 December 173.13 231.39 10.20 26.68 0.00 282.40 209.11 76.84 11.41 6.39 20.76 283.62 Total 1640.00 1275.94 1734.26 1661.66 551.76 2060.80 1673.01 2510.69 1823.74 1070.37 2145.81 2393.43 

Unit 1 Unit 2 U
2022 EAVS Data Brief: Mississippi EAVS Jurisdictions:

82 

Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

1,922,707 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

0 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

140,044 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

152,455 



0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

In Person 

Mail, Email, Fax 

Other 

Online 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Note: Mississippi was unable to 

report data on the sources of 

registration applications in the 2022 

EAVS. 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

31.8% In-Person 

Election Day 

656,874 

92.7% 

Other 

51,711 

7.3% 

Total Voting Locations8: 1,765 

Total Poll Workers9: 5,295 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Scanners 

80.5% 

Ballot 

Marking

Devices

24.4% 

Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

19.5% 

DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 11,722 mail ballots transmitted11 

• No data reported on transmitted mail ballots returned12 

• No data reported on returned mail ballots counted13 

• No data reported on returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Did not allow drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election -- tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
# C_2021329EN.01004001.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/40

---

Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)

(Case T-370/21)

(2021/C 329/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 430 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the registration of the IR 1 430 349 for all applied goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the registration of the IR 1 430 349 for all applied goods;

| — | order EUIPO and Alter Farmacia, S. A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Alter Farmacia, S. A. to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---