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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8870 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8870

         To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 4, 2020

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Perry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Weber of Texas, 
 Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. 
 Duncan, Mr. Steube, and Mr. Griffith) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.

    The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et 
seq.) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1614

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Robert Page

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: November 15, 2012

Filed: December 12, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Page pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit credit card fraud, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 371, 1029(a)(2). The District Court1

 sentenced Page to sixty months in prison, an

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.
upward variance from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty

months, and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to an unrelated state

prison term. The court also ordered $38,580.23 in restitution, with a co-conspirator

jointly and severally liable for the payment. On appeal, Page’s counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that Page’s sentence is unreasonable, that the prison term should have run

concurrently with the state sentence, and that the restitution amount should not have

included certain losses from conduct that occurred in New York.

We conclude that the District Court properly considered the sentencing factors

and that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d

1175, 1178–79 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 130

(2012); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that

an upward-variance sentence is reasonable where the court makes an individualized

assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, based on the facts presented, and

considers the defendant’s proffered information); see also United States v. Becker,

636 F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting that a sentencing court does not abuse its

discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence where it has considered the § 3553(a)

factors). As to restitution, the plea agreement stated that restitution would include the

amount of loss agreed to by the parties, and the parties specifically agreed to

$38,580.23 at the sentencing hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3); see also United

States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and

voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment

on appeal.”).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the

District Court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
# C_2023112EN.01001401.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2022 — XXX v Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros

(Case C-649/22)

(2023/C 112/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XXX

Respondents: Randstad Empleo, S. A., Ferrovial Servicios, S. A., Axa Seguros Generales S. A. de Seguros y Reaseguros

Question referred

Must Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 3[1](f) and Article 5 of Directive 2008/104 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as precluding a case-law interpretation of Spanish legislation according to which compensation for a temporary agency worker whose employment contract has been terminated following a declaration of total permanent incapacity resulting from an accident at work sustained at the user undertaking is excluded from the concept of ‘basic working and employment conditions’?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).

---
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60017 Conference Calendar

JAMES LEE TOLBERT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94CV289-D-D

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant James Tolbert, Jr., did not file a notice of appeal after the district court denied his motion for reconsideration, which was timely as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Therefore, this court cannot consider the motion or the attached documents in adjudicating this appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Based on the record then before it, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Tolbert’s civil rights action without prejudice, for failing to exhaust hisadministrative remedies and for failing to comply with an order

to provide a status report within 150 days. See Pedraza v. Ryan , 18 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Applied Imaging Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Stracey, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 23, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBIN STRACEY      
|                   |  |     |  | Robin Stracey          
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
fxkph 

e 

gxjke 

ixgjh 

ʜalloVUʑoWnVed 

fip 

oj 

e 

ghi 

ʜalloVUejecVed 

OKLʛHOMʛ 

M#'#& 

&.#)(/R!#.,, 

OȨ

I(.,(.

!MV 

P/&#˽ #.(

OȨ

!##&#.# ˽!(3 

M#&#.,3 

R,/#.'(.OȨ 

O. ,S..˽!(3 R!#.,.#)(!,#0

R!#.,.#)(O. , 

188603 

141440 

231263 

43481 

90419 

0 1453 49 283 0 

egiUVTaVion#oTmoWTce 

oValegiUVeTedSoVeTU 

Ȇ ̊ȅȉȋ ̊ȈȉȄ 

ecVionʛVSoVeTegiUVTaVion 

dfhnoqohnmFnqlnddhˏd 

ȋȆȍ ̊ȇȍȋ 

ʑon˄TmaVionNoVi˄caVionUenV 

ȆȊȊ ̊ȄȄȈ 

P)&&#(! 

P& 

UO˳˽V˽ ˽(. P,)0##)(& 

ˏ&&). 

,&3V). 

˳(., 

V).3 

M#& 

T/,()/. 

O.,

1199613 

101905 152126 

4487 7374 0 0 

ecVion#VWTnoWVb[MeVhod 

˳)/(.#/&& ˳)/(. 

P,. 

R$. P,)0##)(& 

O.,

1954 

5419 

1 0 

dohnmE˳Pqnˏhnhnmkˏkknon 

U(#),'S,0# 

N)('#&#.,3O0,

O., 

ecVionʜVOʑʛSʛ 

Ȉ ̊ȇȉȍ 

Ȇ ̊ȈȌȍ 

Ȅ 

Ȋ ̊ȌȈȌ 

ʜalloVUTanUmiVVed 

OʛL OʛL 

PToXiUionalʜalloVoValylxhli WTnoWVoValyfxikjxjej 

dkdo ̨ OɭO
ɭ 

OʛL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

- -

- -

- - -

gefk"ʛS!aVaʜTief
	

U ' 

"

" - '-

"

- "

"

- - - "

" "
# C_2022073EN.01006401.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/64

---

Action brought on 28 December 2021 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR)

(Case T-801/21)

(2022/C 73/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR — Application for registration No 18 335 969

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2021 in Case R 1165/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare European Union trade mark application No 18 335 969 ‘HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR’ to be eligible for registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare European Union trade mark application No 18 335 969 ‘HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR’ to be eligible for registration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Breach of the principle of equality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of equality.

---
EX-10.8(b)



 Exhibit 10.8 (b) 
 June 1, 2013 
 J. E. Moody & Company LLC 

245 SW Birds Hill Road 
 Portland, Oregon
97219-8503 
 Attention: John E. Moody 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Moody: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 JEM Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Commodity Advisors Portfolio L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 

 

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Damian George
		 	 Damian George
 Chief
Financial Officer & Director


  

			
	J.E. MOODY & COMPANY LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ John E. Moody
		
	Print Name:	 	John E. Moody
		
	DG/sr
# C_2022340EN.01002002.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2022 — Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance v Manitou BF SA

(Case C-407/22)

(2022/C 340/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Economie, des Finances et de la Relance

Respondent: Manitou BF SA

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme under which a tax-integrated parent company benefits from the neutralisation of the proportion of costs and expenses added back in respect of dividends received by it from resident companies which are parties to the integration and, for the purpose of taking account of the judgment of 2 September 2015, Groupe Steria SCA (C-386/14), in respect of dividends received from subsidiaries established in another Member State which, had they been resident, would objectively have been eligible, if they so elected, for the tax integration scheme but which refuses the benefit of that neutralisation to a resident parent company which, despite the existence of capital links with other resident entities allowing for the constitution of a tax-integrated group, has not opted to belong to such a group, both in respect of the dividends distributed to it by its resident subsidiaries and in respect of those from subsidiaries established in other Member States which meet the eligibility criteria other than residence?

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL VACA PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 70878 Agency No. A204

- 625

- 781

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022 * *
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Vaca Perez , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigra tion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 70878

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We rev iew de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2 020). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id . at 1241. We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that Vaca Perez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of
members who share a common imm utable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that Vaca Perez oth erwise failed to establish the
harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”);
Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang3 21

- 70878

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Vaca Perez ’s asylum and withholding of removal claim s fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Vaca Perez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8602 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8602

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2020

  Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma (for himself, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
  Lucas, and Ms. Kendra S. Horn of Oklahoma) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
                Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MARSHAL ROBERTS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 866 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To provide a lactation room in public buildings. 

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 ‘‘Fairness For Breastfeeding 

Mothers Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. LACTATION ROOM IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS. 

(a) LACTATION ROOM IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.—Chapter 33 of 

title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following new section: 

‘‘§ 3318. Lactation room in public buildings 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.—The term ‘appropriate 

authority’ means the head of a Federal agency, the Architect 

of the Capitol, or other official authority responsible for the 

operation of a public building. 

‘‘(2) COVERED PUBLIC BUILDING.—The term ‘covered public 

building’ means a public building (as defined in section 3301) 

that is open to the public and contains a public restroom, 

and includes a building listed in section 6301 or 5101. 

‘‘(3) LACTATION ROOM.—The term ‘lactation room’ means 

a hygienic place, other than a bathroom, that— 

‘‘(A) is shielded from view; 

‘‘(B) is free from intrusion; and 

‘‘(C) contains a chair, a working surface, and, if the 

public building is otherwise supplied with electricity, an 

electrical outlet. 

‘‘(b) LACTATION ROOM REQUIRED.—Except as provided in subsection (c), the appropriate authority of a covered public building 

shall ensure that the building contains a lactation room that is 

made available for use by members of the public to express breast 

milk. 

‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—A covered public building may be excluded 

from the requirement in subsection (b) at the discretion of the 

appropriate authority if— 

‘‘(1) the public building— 

‘‘(A) does not contain a lactation room for employees 

who work in the building; and 

‘‘(B) does not have a room that could be repurposed 

as a lactation room or a space that could be made private 

using portable materials, at a reasonable cost; or 
H. R. 866—2 

‘‘(2) new construction would be required to create a lactation room in the public building and the cost of such construction is unfeasible. 

‘‘(d) NO UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY.—Nothing in this section shall 

be construed to authorize an individual to enter a public building 

or portion thereof that the individual is not otherwise authorized 

to enter.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 33 of title 40, United States Code, is amended 

by inserting after the item related to section 3316 the following 

new item: 

‘‘3318. Lactation room in public buildings.’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 

shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.