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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8768 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include aliens passing 

in transit through the United States to board a vessel on which the 

alien will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo transfer operations within 

a class of nonimmigrant aliens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. WEBER of Texas (for himself, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. 

CLOUD, Mr. OLSON, and Mr. CUELLAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include 

aliens passing in transit through the United States to 

board a vessel on which the alien will perform shipto-ship liquid cargo transfer operations within a class 

of nonimmigrant aliens, 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 ‘‘Keeping America’s En5 ergy Resources Moving Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8768 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF NONIMMIGRANT IN TRANSIT. 

2 Subparagraph (C) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immi3 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is 

4 amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(C)(i) an alien in immediate and contin6 uous transit through the United States not to 

7 exceed 29 days; 

8 ‘‘(ii) an alien who qualifies as a person en9 titled to pass in transit to and from the United 

10 Nations Headquarters District and foreign 

11 countries, under the provisions of paragraphs 

12 (3), (4), and (5) of section 11 of the Head13 quarters Agreement with the United Nations 

14 (61 Stat. 758); or 

15 ‘‘(iii) an alien passing in transit through 

16 the United States to board a vessel on which 

17 the alien will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo 

18 transfer operations to or from another vessel 

19 engaged in foreign trade for a period not to ex20 ceed 180 days.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. CONDITIONAL PERMITS TO LAND TEMPORARILY. 

22 Section 252(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

23 Act (8 U.S.C. 1282(a)) is amended— 

24 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

25 end; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8768 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) 180 days, if the immigration officer is sat5 isfied that the crewman intends to depart, within the 

6 period for which the crewman is permitted to land, 

7 on either the same vessel or on a vessel other than 

8 the vessel on which the crewman arrived and that 

9 the crewman will perform ship-to-ship liquid cargo 

10 transfer operations to or from any other vessel en11 gaged in foreign trade during such period.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2021502EN.01003902.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/39

---

Action brought on 19 October 2021 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The Art Company B & S (art class)

(Case T-676/21)

(2021/C 502/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark art class — Application for registration No 16 888 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 in Case R 1596/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal as well as the Opposition Division.

Plea 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.

---
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian Alleman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Simtek Corporation;

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. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our 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):

         (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: November 11, 2005

                                              /s/Brian Alleman
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Brian Alleman
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1









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 Beverly Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan Roylance, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350,
as added by ss. 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 as of and for
the period covered by


the
Report.





April
      17, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Jonathan
      RoylanceJonathan
      RoylancePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer, Secretaryand Director
      (Principal Executive, Financial, and Accounting Officer)




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.
ex102.htm



Exhibit 10.2


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION.


54 Cummings Park


Suite 316


Woburn, MA 01801


 


December 31, 2013







Re:           Magnolia Solar Corporation







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to that certain (i) Second Amended and Restated Original Issue Discount Senior Secured Convertible Note of Magnolia Solar Corporation (the “Company”) dated December 21, 2012 in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the signature line below held by the undersigned (the “Second Amended Note”), and (ii) Second Amended and Restated Warrant dated December 21, 2012 as evidenced by the warrant number referenced in the signature line below (the “Second Amended Warrant”). Reference is further made to those other notes and/or warrants (the “Other Notes” and “Other Warrants”, respectively), originally issued, directly or indirectly, in connection with that certain offering of 26.6 units of the Company that closed on December 31, 2009 and which resulted, either directly or indirectly, in the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant.







1. Effective as of the date hereof, the holder of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant (the “Holder”) and the Company hereby agree as follows: (i) the Maturity Date of the Second Amended Note, as such term is defined therein, is extended to December 31, 2014, (ii) the Warrant Price of the Second Amended Warrant, as such term is defined therein, is reduced to $0.10 per share, and (iii) except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.







2. The Holder hereby waives any adjustment under Section 5 of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant that (i) may arise under the provisions of Section 1 herein, (ii) may arise as a result of the extension of the term of any Other Note, (iii) as a result of the reduction of the Warrant Price of any Other Warrant, and/or (B) may have occurred at any time after the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant through to and including the date hereof.







Upon the mutual execution of this agreement, please affix this agreement to the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant held by the undersigned.


 



	 	
Very truly yours,


 


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION


	 	  
	 	/s/ Ashok K. Sood	
12/31/2013


	 	
By: Dr. Ashok K. Sood


	 	
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer












Agreed and Accepted


as of the date hereof:


















	
/s/ Alan Donenfeld

	
 







By: Mr. Alan Donenfeld


Title: General Partner, Paragon Capital, LP












Principal Amount of Note: _$700,000___







Warrant No: __MSC-001A________
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That there shall be printed as a Senate docu3 ment the report of the Commission on Protecting and Re4 ducing Government Secrecy.

5 SEC. 2. The document referred to in the first section

6 shall be—

7 (1) published under the supervision of the Sec8 retary of the Senate; and

9 (2) in such style, form, manner, and binding as

10 directed by the Joint Committee on Printing, after

11 consultation with the Secretary of the Senate.

12 The document shall include illustrations.

13 SEC. 3. In addition to the usual number of copies

14 of the document, there shall be printed the lesser of—

15 (1) 5,000 copies for the use of the Secretary of

16 Senate; or
2

SCON 67 ES

1 (2) such number of copies as does not exceed

2 a total production and printing cost of $45,000.

Passed the Senate September 17, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize printing of the report of the Commiscrecy. sion on Protecting and Reducing Government Se-
# C_2022276EN.01000402.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 19 April 2022 — Criminal proceedings against GN

(Case C-261/22)

(2022/C 276/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Procuratore generale presso la Corte di appello di Bologna; GN

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 1(2) and (3) and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit the executing judicial authority to refuse or in any case defer the surrender of a mother who has minor children living with her? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 1(2) and (3) and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit the executing judicial authority to refuse or in any case defer the surrender of a mother who has minor children living with her?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Article 1(2) and (3) and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with Articles 7 and 24(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, also considering the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 8 of the [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, in so far as they require the surrender of the mother, thus severing ties with minor children living with her without considering the best interest of the child? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Article 1(2) and (3) and Articles 3 and 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with Articles 7 and 24(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, also considering the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 8 of the [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, in so far as they require the surrender of the mother, thus severing ties with minor children living with her without considering the best interest of the child?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000036924-JAN-201308:23 AM
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Iowa EAVS Jurisdictions 

99 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

2,193,813 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

525,908 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

111,698 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 40,983 

In-Person 86,971 

Online 30,683 

Motor Vehicle Office 152,486 

Public Assistance 

Office 3,502 

Disability Office 51 

Military Recruitment 

Office 54 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 157 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or 

Not Categorized 211,021 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

In-Person E-Day 

787,074 

59% 

By Mail 

535,125 

40% 

Other Mode 

12,080 

1% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 1,334,279 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 10,143 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 1,937 



8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 



99 99 

0 0 0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

94 

9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

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

are shown as zeroes.
[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, 

GARY 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 2 
2

________________________

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 District 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
# C_2021382EN.01003401.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/34

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

(Case T-477/21)

(2021/C 382/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan and F. Verhoestraete, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of an inhaler) — European Union trade mark No 2 179 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2021 in Case R 1835/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karriece Quontrel DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17492 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 5, 2018)

Michael Thomas Simpson, Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Karriece Quontrel Davis, Pro Se

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Karriece Davis, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for credit for time served and denial of his motion for reconsideration. Davis’s notice of appeal in this case states that he wishes to appeal the order denying his motion for reconsideration, but his appellate brief in this case discusses the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment from which Davis has filed a separate notice of appeal.

An appellant’s brief must contain a statement of all of the issues presented for review. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6). We liberally construe pro se pleadings. *Tannenbaum v. United States,*148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). A pro se appellant nonetheless still abandons an issue when he fails to offer argument on the issue in his brief. *Timson v. Sampson,*518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Davis has not raised any argument in his brief challenging the district court’s denials of his motion for credit for time served and his. motion for reconsideration. He thus has abandoned any challenge to those denials. *See id.*Accordingly, we must affirm because Davis has not shown that the district court erred by denying his motion for credit for time served or his motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED.