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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 959 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that traveling interstate 

or causing another to travel interstate for the purpose of female genital 

mutilation is prohibited, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2019 

Mr. PERRY (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. RYAN, 

Mrs. WAGNER, and Ms. JACKSON LEE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that 

traveling interstate or causing another to travel interstate for the purpose of female genital mutilation is 

prohibited, 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 ‘‘Protect our Girls Act 

5 of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. 

7 Section 116 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 959 IH

1 ‘‘(e) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever 

2 knowingly commits one of the following shall be fined 

3 under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years: 

4 ‘‘(1) Travels in interstate commerce to cir5 cumcise, excise, or infibulate the whole or any part 

6 of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of an7 other person who has not attained the age of 18 

8 years. 

9 ‘‘(2) Causes another person who has not at10 tained the age of 18 years to travel in interstate 

11 commerce for the whole or any part of the labia 

12 majora or labia minora or clitoris of that person to 

13 be circumcised, excised, or infibulated.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 11-10867.

#### Phillips *v.*Cain, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

Notes from Cyhalofop Focus Meeting

- July 11, 2014 Jill Bloom

- author Introductions Dow provided a little history and addressed each of the questions previously posed by the team in its PowerPoint presentation. Cyhalofop was registered in Japan and the Philippines before it was registered here. It is effective against grass weeds only, and is most effective before the grass when the wax cuticle is not too far developed. Cyhalofop is very phytotoxic to peaches and nectarines and Dow has conducted drift testing to determine what size buffer is protective. Product labels specify which adjuvants should be used. Dow conducts training every year with aerial applicators in California to facilitate proper use in peac h

- growing country. Dow does not intend to register cyhalofop for use on wild rice. EFED will identify labels in which they saw use instructions for wild rice to Jolene so the issue can be resolved. Dow also provided a list of data submissions for cyhal ofop. Many of the studies were submitted to European authorities two years ago. Granular product is used to control submerged weeds up to the 3

- leaf stage. It needs water/moisture to be effective. When water is removed from the paddies, weeds tend to b e bigger and harder to control. Liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used as a “rescue treatment” at this stage. Rescue treatments are made more often in the southern states. For drill

- seeded (dry

- seeded) rice, a pre

- emergence herbicide may be used a fter planting. Flushing is conducted to keep moisture levels high in the paddy, but there is no “discharge” out of the paddy per se . As rice grows taller and starts to tiller, the paddy can be flooded, which helps with weed control. If weeds are not ver

y well submerged, liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used at that point. Weed leaves need to intercept the herbicide for it to be effective, and growers may draw down the water level to facilitate. Rice is grown in fields surrounded by levees and wi th a relatively impermeable barrier under the plants. This land is not good for cultivation of other crops because of the heaviness of the soil. Clincher GR labels appear to discuss the use of Clincher DR. DR is not a registered product and should be re moved. EFED will identify labels referencing its use for Jolene so the issue can be resolved. Clincher can be used for spot treatments in rationed rice. Ratooning is relatively rare but can be used in Lousiana. There is a 60d PHI for cyhalofop. About 20% of the rice crop is treated with cyhalofop. Buffers on multi

- ai labels are driven by cyhalofop. Dow does not sell Rebel X in CA. 24(c) uses should be2

assessed because Dow believes the registrations will be renewed. Some of the rates are a little higher and will have to be assessed. Follow

- up items: Labels to Jolene for clarification Dow will advise on “confidentiality” of powerpoint with regard to docketing.
Exhibit
                                                                            99.1


                 BROWN-BENCHMARK PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the filing of Brown-Benchmark Properties Limited
Partnership's (the "Partnership") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Prugh, the Chief Executive Officer of
Brown-Benchmark AGP, Inc., Administrative General Partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Partnership.



Date:  11/13/02                 By: /s/John M. Prugh

                                John M. Prugh
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                Brown-Benchmark AGP, Inc.
                                Administrative General Partner
#### Hector Martin MACHIC-RISCAJCHE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70159

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2018 * Portland, Oregon

Filed March 15, 2018

Amanda Ellen Gray, Parker, Butte *&*Lane, P.C., Portland, OR, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John Frederick Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: FISHER, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Martin Machie-Riscajche petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s explicit adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency between Machic’s asylum application, which stated he did not know who his Partido Patriota attackers were, and his testimony, which identified one of those attackers as the mayor’s son. *See Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ confronted Machic on this inconsistency, and Machic failed to provide a reasonable explanation. *See id.*at 1046-48. Machic’s inconsistency is significant. First, Machic asserts that his persecutors targeted him to work for the Partido Patriota in the upcoming elections, one of which was for the mayoral race. Second, in his asylum application and in ■his testimony, Machic claimed he refused to join the Partido Patriota because the mayor, a member of the party’s local branch, was corrupt.

Machic’s post-hoc explanations (which he did not provide to the IJ) do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Machic’s asylum and withholding of removal claims therefore fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Machic also failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he “more likely than not” would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA properly denied his CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted December 21, 2016;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed February 23;

petition for review denied July 20, 2017 (361 Or 671)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*RICHARD JOHN CASON, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C141904CR; A158773

389 P3d 417

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*902PER CURIAM

In this appeal, defendant advances multiple assignments of error challenging his assault convictions and his sentences. We reject all of defendant’s assignments of error without published discussion, with the exception of his second assignment, which concerns the trial court’s imposition of court-appointed attorney fees. In that assignment, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing fees in the amount of $3,095, because there is no evidence in the record that he is or may be able to pay them. *See*ORS 151.505(3); ORS 161.665(4). He further argues that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error under the circumstances, including the large amount of the award and defendant’s lengthy prison term of 70 months. The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that we should exercise our discretion to correct the error. We accept the state’s concession and, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Fleet,*270 Or App 246, 247, 347 P3d 345 (2015), exercise our discretion to reverse the imposition of attorney fees.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00316-CV

35 BAR & GRILL LLC d/b/a San Antonio Men’s Club,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023-CI-04177

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. We order appellant to pay the costs of this appeal.

SIGNED February 14, 2024.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 8, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00164-CV THB CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellant V. CANTERBURY COVE, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12084

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Before the Court is the parties’ joint mo tion to dismiss the appeal because they
have settled their dispute. We gran t the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

220164F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

THB CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellant

No. 05-22-00164-CV V.

CANTERBURY COVE, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12084. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee CANTERBURY COVE, LLC recover its cost s of this appeal from appellant THB CONSTRUCTION, LLC.

Judgment entered April 8, 2022
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO



THE LIVEXLIVE MEDIA,
INC. 2016 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
and stockholders of LiveXLive Media, Inc. (the “Company”) have previously adopted the LiveXLive Media, Inc. 2016 Equity Incentive
Plan (as amended, the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section
3(a) of the Plan, a total of twelve million six hundred thousand (12,600,000) shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value
per share (the “Common Stock”), have been reserved for issuance under the Plan;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires
to increase the number of shares issuable under the Plan by five million (5,000,000) to seventeen million six hundred thousand (17,600,000)
shares, including shares previously issued thereunder;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires
to make certain other changes to the Plan as more fully discussed below; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 19 of the
Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan from time to time, subject to certain limitations specified therein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the following
amendments and modifications are hereby made a part of the Plan subject to, and effective as of the date of, the approval of stockholders
of this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan:


 


1. Section 3(a) of the Plan
shall be, and hereby is, amended to increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock issuable thereunder to seventeen million six
hundred thousand, and Section 3(a) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“(a) Maximum
Aggregate Number of Shares. Subject to the provisions of Section 14 hereof, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be awarded
and sold under the Plan is Seventeen Million Six Hundred Thousand (17,600,000) Shares. The Shares may be authorized, but unissued, or
reacquired Common Stock”.


 


2. In all other respects, the
Plan, as amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
has executed this Amendment No. 2 to the Company’s 2016 Equity Incentive Plan as of June 29, 2021.


 


	 	 	LIVEXLIVE MEDIA,
    INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Quartieri
	 	 	Name:	 	Michael Quartieri
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-10506.

#### Ali *v.*Maness et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2023007EN.01003201.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/32

---

Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Canalones Castilla v EUIPO — Canalones Novokanal (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts)

(Case T-329/22)

(2023/C 7/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Canalones Castilla, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. J. Serrano Irurzun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canalones Novokanal, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts) — Community design No 363 486-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1122/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | if the applicant’s claims are rejected in their entirety, order, in ruling as to costs in the decision closing the proceedings, that the other parties must bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

if the applicant’s claims are rejected in their entirety, order, in ruling as to costs in the decision closing the proceedings, that the other parties must bear their own costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The prior disclosure of the design submitted by the invalidity applicant has not been sufficiently established. |
| --- | --- |

—

The prior disclosure of the design submitted by the invalidity applicant has not been sufficiently established.

| — | In the alternative, the design submitted by the invalidity applicant as a prior design does not produce the same overall impression as the design at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the design submitted by the invalidity applicant as a prior design does not produce the same overall impression as the design at issue.

| — | In the alternative, the disclosure was abusive due to infringement of copyright. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the disclosure was abusive due to infringement of copyright.

---
# C_2021462EN.01005401.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/54

---

Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Guangdong Camel Apparel v EUIPO — Worldwide Brands (CAMEL CROWN)

(Case T-590/21)

(2021/C 462/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guangdong Camel Apparel Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CAMEL CROWN — Application for registration No 17 882 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 159/2020-5 and R 184/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | upheld the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

upheld the appeal;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, by reason of the erroneous assessment of the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, by reason of the erroneous assessment of the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

---
No. 11-10683.

#### Rhines *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12244-12245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6495]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Office of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science; Central 
Utah Project Completion Act, Upalco Unit Replacement Project

AGENCIES: The Department of the Interior (Department) and the Central 
Utah Water Conservancy District (District).

ACTION: Notice of the draft environmental impact statement extension of 
comment period: DES 96-51.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Department and the District have 
issued a joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) on the 
Upalco Unit Replacement Project (Upalco). The Draft EIS was filed with 
the Environmental Protection Agency on December 27, 1996. Informal 
requests have been received from Federal agencies to extend the written 
comment period. Therefore, the date for submittal of written comments 
is being extended.

DATES: Written comments on the Draft EIS must be submitted or 
postmarked no later than March 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft EIS should be addressed to: Terry 
Holzworth, Project Manager, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 
355 West 1300 South, Orem, Utah 84058.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional copies of the Draft EIS, or 
copies of the feasibility studies, the resources technical reports, or 
information on matters related to this notice can be obtained on 
request from: Ms. Nancy Hardman, Central Utah Water Conservancy 
District, 355 West 1300 South, Orem, Utah 84058, Telephone: (801) 226-
7187, Fax: (801) 226-7150.
    Copies are also available for inspection at:

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 355 West 1300 South, Orem, 
Utah 84058
Department of the Interior, Natural Resource Library, Serials Branch, 
18th

[[Page 12245]]

and C Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20240
Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 
302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray Agency, 988 South 7500 East, 
Fort Duchesne, Utah 84026.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Ronald Johnston,
CUPCA Program Director, Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-6495 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
No. 11-1425.

#### Missouri *v.*McNeely.

Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari granted.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-271-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, and 
South Georgia Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Waiver

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company, 
Sea Robin Pipeline Company and South Georgia Natural Gas Company 
(collectively referred to as Southern Pipelines) tendered for filing a 
petition for an interim waiver of the requirements of the Commission's 
Order No. 587-B issued January 30, 1997, in Docket No. RM96-1-003.
    Southern Pipelines states that copies of the filing have been 
mailed to all of the shippers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before 
March 13, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6101 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```