alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: TECSEC, INC., Appellant

2017-1648

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 7, 2018

Michael Oakes, Hunton *&*Williams LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Ozzie Farres, Steven Leslie Wood.

Sarah E. Craven, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Mai-Trang Due Dang, Thomas W. Krause.

*892Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

(Taranto, Clevenger, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8945 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8945

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to provide flexibility with the cost share for fire 
             management assistance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2020

  Mr. Neguse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to provide flexibility with the cost share for fire 
             management assistance, 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 ``Wildfire Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COST SHARE.

    Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Federal Share.--The Federal share of assistance under this 
section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost, as set 
forth in the regulations, of such assistance.''.

SEC. 3. RULEMAKING.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
President, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and in consultation with the heads of relevant 
Federal departments and agencies, including the United States Forest 
Service and Department of Interior, shall conduct and complete a 
rulemaking to develop guidelines and a rule that establishes thresholds 
for cases in which the Federal cost share for section 420 of the Robert 
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5187) may be increased. Such thresholds shall use a fire-specific 
metric to determine fire damage referred to in subsection (a) of such 
section, and recommend a Federal cost share adjustment for fire damage 
that meets the established thresholds. The Administrator shall follow 
all notice and comment requirements set forth in section 553 of title 
5, United States Code, for such rulemaking.
                                 <all>
```
#### Khalid AWAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. D. J. HARMON, Warden (Seagoville); A. Gill, Warden (Mendota); Juan D. Constillo, Director (Western Regional Office); A. Strong, Associate Warden (Seagoville); Gerardo Rosalez, Associate Warden (Seagoville); Steve Lake, Associate Warden (Mendota); D. Wilson, Administrative Remedy Coordinator/Executive Assistant (Seagoville); J. Leap, Special Investigative Services Officer (Seagoville); G. Schanfish, Supervisory Chaplain (Seagoville); Nfn White, Assistant Food Service Administrator (Seago-ville); Nfn Johnson, Unit Manager-Buildings D-54 & 7 (Seagoville); J. Williams, Education Technician (Seagoville); Officer Nfn Guzman, Unit Counselor-Building C-7 (Seagoville); Eddy M. Meija, Warden (Seagoville)-(Retired); Nfn Hunter, Health Services Administrator (Seagoville)-(Retired); Mr. Nfn Benson, Trust Fund Supervision (Seagoville)-(Retired); Nfn Watson, Education Teacher (Mendota)-(Released); P. Kane, Centerl Bureau Director (Federal Bureau of Prisons); J. A. Keller, Director, Southwestern Central Regional Office, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-10379 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Filed March 14, 2018

Khalid Awan, Pro Se

*463Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Khalid Awan, federal prisoner # 50959-054, filed a civil rights complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP). The district court found that Awan was barred under the three-strikes rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from filing his civil action because he was not under imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court denied Awan’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and ordered him to pay the filing fee or have his civil rights action dismissed. The district court subsequently dismissed Awan’s complaint without prejudice for having failed to pay the filing fee. Awan has appealed.

In finding that Awan had three strikes, the district eourt counted the case of *Awan v. Lapin,*2010 WL 963916 (E.D.N.Y. March 17, 2010), as a strike because some of Awan’s claims had been found to have failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and some had been dismissed on summary judgment. After the district court’s IFP denial, we held that a strike does not issue unless all of the claims are dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. *Brown v. Megg,*857 F.3d 287, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the cases cited by the district court do not establish that Awan has three strikes under § 1915(g). The district court’s order finding that Awan was barred under § 1915(g) and the subsequent dismissal of his complaint are VACATED. The matter is REMANDED to the district court for consideration consistent with *Brown.*

Awan’s motion seeking initial hearing en banc of his appeal is DENIED. *See*5th Cir. R. 35.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8765 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8765

   To codify the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs of the 
                          Department of Labor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2020

  Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself, Mr. Long, Mr. Fulcher, and Mr. Banks) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To codify the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs of the 
                          Department of Labor.

    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 ``Modernizing America's Apprenticeship 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INDUSTRY-RECOGNIZED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT 
              OF LABOR.

    The provisions of part 29 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 
as amended by the final regulations entitled ``Apprenticeship Programs, 
Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations'' published 
by the Department of Education in the Federal Register on March 11, 
2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 14294 et seq.), and as in effect on the day before 
the date of enactment of this Act, shall have the force and effect of 
enacted law.
                                 <all>
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 95

Recognizing and commending American airmen held as political prisoners

at the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their

service, bravery, and fortitude.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1997

Mr. WELDON of Florida (for himself, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. COOK, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. FROST, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LAHOOD,

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. MILLER of Florida,

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr.

FORBES, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. PORTER, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. DICKEY)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing and commending American airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II for their service, bravery, and fortitude.

Whereas 168 Allied airmen captured by Axis forces during

World War II were held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, Germany;

Whereas of these captured airmen, 82 were Americans, 26

were Canadians, 48 were Britons, 9 were Australians, 2

were New Zealanders, and 1 was Jamaican;
2

•HCON 95 IH

Whereas the facts and circumstances of their confinement are

amply documented in the official records maintained by

the National Archives and Records Administration;

Whereas a report from the International Red Cross concerning Stalag Luft III in Sagan, Germany, mentioned six

American airmen held at Buchenwald, including one

whose name does not appear on the lists maintained by

the National Archives;

Whereas since the liberation of Buchenwald in 1945 numerous personal memoirs, scholarly books, and articles have

been published describing the conditions at the concentration camp;

Whereas this extensive documentation records the extraordinarily inhuman treatment, deprivations, and personal

suffering inflicted on these 168 Allied airmen and other

inmates at Buchenwald; and

Whereas Allied Governments and veterans organizations outside the United States have granted special recognition to

their citizens and servicemembers who were held as political prisoners in World War II concentration camps: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizes and commends the 82 American

4 airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald

5 concentration camp during World War II for their

6 faithful service, personal bravery, and exceptional

7 fortitude; and
3

•HCON 95 IH

1 (2) requests that the President issue a procla2 mation recognizing and commending, by name, the

3 service, bravery, and fortitude of those airmen.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         264,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,644,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,961,904
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,444,668
<PP&E>                                       8,642,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,305,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,318,486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,444,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,305,084
<SALES>                                     45,523,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,523,196
<CGS>                                       29,423,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,423,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,120,055
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             370,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,279,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,250,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,029,810
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,029,810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022037EN.01003501.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/35

---

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellbe Pharmaceuticals (WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS)

(Case T-644/21)

(2022/C 37/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wellbe Pharmaceuticals S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS — Application for registration No 17 151 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 1423/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8666 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8666

 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2020

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain business concerns from receiving assistance from 
       the Small Business Administration, 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 ``No Small Business Aid for China 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AFFILIATION WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Prohibition on affiliation with the people's 
        republic of china.--For purposes of this Act, a small business 
        concern may not--
                    ``(A) be headquartered in the People's Republic of 
                China;
                    ``(B) have more than 25 percent of the voting stock 
                of the small business concern owned by affiliates that 
                are citizens of or organized under the laws of the 
                People's Republic of China; or
                    ``(C) be known to be associated with human rights 
                violations that have occurred in Xinjiang Province, 
                China.''.
    (b) Regulations and Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration shall amend the regulations and guidance of the 
Administration, including sections 120.100, 120.110, and 121.105 of 
title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, to carry out the amendment made 
by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7096

ROBERT DALE STRICKLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
SHERIFF MCCABE, Norfolk City Jail; MAJOR CAMACHO, Chief Corrections Officer, NorfolkCity Jail; CAPTAIN KOCEJA, Assistant Corrections Officer, Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN STOCKS, Chief Records Officer, Norfolk City Jail; LIEUTENANT BLUNT, Team Commander, Norfolk City Jail; SERGEANT WHITE, Assistant Team Commander, Norfolk City Jail; DEPUTY ORTIZ, Floor Deputy, Floor Supervisor, NorfolkCity Jail; DEPUTY WALSH, Law Library Supervisor, Norfolk City Jail; MR. CRADOCK, Chief Classification Officer Norfolk City Jail; MARLO COPELAND, Supervisor, Inmate Funds, Inmate Canteen; SHERIFF NEWHART, Chesapeake City Jail; CAPTAIN CHESSOM, Chief Correctional Officer; SERGEANT HOEKLINE, Dayshift Sergeant; DEPUTY MILAN, Floor Deputy; DEPUTY DUNN; SERGEANT KIRBY, Dayshift Sergeant; MR. KITE, Chief Classification, Chesapeake City Jail;RON ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections; PATRICK GURNEY, Manager, Classification and Research, DOC; LINDA PITTMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor;JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Western Tidewater Regional Jail (W.T.R.J.); CAPTAIN FAULK, Chief of Security, W. T.R.J.; MR. ELLEY, LawLibrary Supervisor, W.T.R.J.; MR. WESTMINISTER, Head of the Medical Department, W.T.R.J.; MIKE DISTEL, Chief Classification Officer, W.T.R.J., Defendants - Appellees.2Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-126-2)
Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998
Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Robert Dale Strickler appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did notdemonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court'sdismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. We note that Strickler's claim seeking transfer to a state facility is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e as it involves a condition of confinement. Nonetheless, we conclude that the claim was properly dismissed because Strickler has no liberty interest in such transfer. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995). We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Submitted October 7,

reversed November 30, 2016

#### In the Matter of W. C. A., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*W. C. A., *Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

16CC01923; A161911

385 P3d 89

Joseph DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and' Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

*623PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). He contends that, contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from a mental disorder. ORS 426.005(1)(f). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the commitment judgment.

Reversed.
# C_2022109EN.01002701.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/27

---

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

(Case T-11/22)

(2022/C 109/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medivet Group Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and M. Tillwich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MEDIVET — Application for registration No 18 132 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 1066/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---