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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8891 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8891

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 229 Minnetonka Avenue South in Wayzata, Minnesota, as the ``Jim 
                         Ramstad Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2020

 Mr. Phillips (for himself, Mr. Hagedorn, Ms. Craig, Ms. McCollum, Ms. 
    Omar, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Stauber) 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 229 Minnetonka Avenue South in Wayzata, Minnesota, as the ``Jim 
                         Ramstad Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM RAMSTAD POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 229 Minnetonka Avenue South in Wayzata, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Jim Ramstad Post Office''.
    (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 ``Jim 
Ramstad Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022380EN.01002202.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/22

---

Action brought on 11 August 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — BASF (OMEGOR)

(Case T-495/22)

(2022/C 380/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway)

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 mark OMEGOR — International registration designating the European Union No 1 409 659

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 1168/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

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.

---
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Document Control Office (7407M) US EPA, 1201 Constitution Ave NW Washington , D.C. 20460 Contact Number: (202) 564-9364 RE: PMN TS# A113MS To Whom It May Concern: The CAS number for [_ ,] was determined by comparing the intermediate substance with this CAS number description

.
No. 11-10420.

#### Leatherman *v.*Kentucky.

Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.
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  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.  Dated: April 15, 2008/s/David Morris
David Morris
President & Chief Executive Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In connection with the Annual Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
-----------------------------------------------------
Laurence A. Schiffer
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)          March 31, 2005

<FN>
*Asigned original of this written statement has been provided to the
 Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023015EN.01004802.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/48

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — 1906 Collins v EUIPO — Peace United (bâoli BEACH)

(Case T-160/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
# C_2022311EN.01001801.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/18

---

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Diesel v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Joggjeans)

(Case T-379/22)

(2022/C 311/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Joggjeans — European Union trade mark No 18 187 200

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1074/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold it its entirety the application filed by Diesel SpA and annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold it its entirety the application filed by Diesel SpA and annul the contested decision;

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs, including all the costs of the earlier stages of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs, including all the costs of the earlier stages of these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40827 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

-------------------- January 24, 2003 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Jose Sanchez-Garcia (Sanchez) appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He argues that the district court erred in going beyond the statute of conviction and the charging instrument to determine that a 16-level increase in his offense level was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii). He contends that the reasoning from our decisions interpreting the “career offender” guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2, should be applied, which limit consideration to the conduct charged in the indictment, ratherNo. 02-40827 -2- than the underlying conduct of the offense. See , United States v. Gaitan , 954 F.2d 1005, 1009-11 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Fitzhugh , 954 F.2d 253, 254-55 (5th Cir. 1992). Our holdings in Gaitan and Fitzhugh were based on specific language contained in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, limiting the sentencing court’s inquiry to the conduct alleged in the indictment in determining whether the enhancement applies. Neither U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 nor its commentary contains such limiting language. Furthermore, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 instructs that when determining the defendant’s “specific offense characteristics” under Chapter Two of the Guidelines, “[c]onduct that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (backg’d). We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not misapply U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii). Sanchez also contends that the sentence-enhancing provisions contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### S & H TRANSPORT v. CITY OF YORK

242 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/05/2017

York County Civil Division, 2012-SU-4143-54

Reversed
# C_2022359EN.01003401.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2022 — Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-396/22)

(2022/C 359/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred

| 1. | Must proceedings for the subsequent determination of a cumulative sentence still also be considered to fall within the scope of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) where the decision is taken by way of a judgment following a hearing, but, in that judgment, the finding of guilt cannot be reviewed and the sentence imposed in respect of the individual offence cannot be amended? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must proceedings for the subsequent determination of a cumulative sentence still also be considered to fall within the scope of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (2) where the decision is taken by way of a judgment following a hearing, but, in that judgment, the finding of guilt cannot be reviewed and the sentence imposed in respect of the individual offence cannot be amended?

| 2. | Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the primacy of EU law for the German legislature to have configured the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute impediment to surrender in Paragraph 83(1)(3) of the Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters), even though Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that regard?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).

---
# C_2022284EN.01005202.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/52

---

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Nurel v EUIPO — FKuR Property (Terylene)

(Case T-325/22)

(2022/C 284/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nurel, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: M. Anadón Giménez and J. Learte Álvarez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FKuR Property GmbH (Willich, Germany)

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 word mark Terylene — Application for registration No 18 088 348

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2022 in Case R 1544/2021-4

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, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

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;

| — | The proof of use submitted by the opponent during the appeal proceedings should have never been admitted, and therefore, the contested decision should have considered only the proof of use submitted during oppositions proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

The proof of use submitted by the opponent during the appeal proceedings should have never been admitted, and therefore, the contested decision should have considered only the proof of use submitted during oppositions proceedings;

| — | The proof of use submitted by the opponent is not sufficient to prove genuine use for all the earlier goods ‘unprocessed plastics’ in Class 1 on which the opposition is based, and therefore, the opposition should have been rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proof of use submitted by the opponent is not sufficient to prove genuine use for all the earlier goods ‘unprocessed plastics’ in Class 1 on which the opposition is based, and therefore, the opposition should have been rejected.

---
**Puget Sound Energy, Inc.**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

```

1.     ConneXt
       c/o James W. Eldredge
       411 108th Ave. N.E., 15th Floor
       Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5515

2.     GP Acquisition Corp.
       c/o James W. Eldredge
       411 108th Ave. N.E., 15th Floor
       Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5515

3.     Hydro Energy Development Corporation (HEDC)
       19515 North Creek Parkway
       Suite 310
       Bothell, WASHINGTON 98011

4.     LP Acquisition Corp.
       c/o James W. Eldredge
       411 108th Ave. N.E., 15th Floor
       Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5515

5.     PSE Utility Solutions, Inc.
       19515 North Creek Parkway
       Suite 310
       Bothell, WASHINGTON 98011

6.     Puget Western, Inc.
       19515 North Creek Parkway
       Suite 310
       Bothell, WASHINGTON 98011

7.     Puget Sound Energy Services, Inc.
       19515 North Creek Parkway
       Suite 310
       Bothell, WASHINGTON 98011

8.     Washington Energy Gas Marketing Company
       c/o James W. Eldredge
       411 108th Ave. N.E., 15th Floor
       Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5515

9.     WNG CAP I, Inc.
       c/o James W. Eldredge
       411 108th Ave. N.E., 15th Floor
       Bellevue, WASHINGTON 98004-5515
```
No. 11-10651.

#### Glidden *v.*New Hampshire.

Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 030697B]


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) 
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold its 65th meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 8-10, 1997, from 8:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. each day.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 
Atkinson Dr., Ilima Room, Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808) 955-4811.
    Council address: Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 
Bishop St., Suite 1405, Honolulu, HI 96813.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone: (808) 522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSC will discuss and may make 
recommendations to the Council on the following agenda items:
    1. Pelagic fishery issues, including:
    a. Pelagic Fisheries Research;
    b. Cross Seamount interaction issue;
    c. Pelagic data amendment;
    d. Bycatch issues/incidental take issues (turtles, sharks, 
albatross);
    e. Determination of the Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing 
for the Pacific Insular Area Fishery Agreements; and (f) other pelagic 
issues.
    2. Hawaii bottomfish issues, including:
    a. Status of the State's draft management plan for the Main 
Hawaiian Islands Onaga and Ehu; and
    b. Reconsideration of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands management 
system;
    3. Lobster management, including:
    a. Summary of review panel's report and summary of Crustacean Plan 
Team and Hawaii Crustacean Advisory Panel recommendations regarding 
population size, risk analysis, high grading in the 1996 fishery, 
economic pros and cons of high grading, and valid sample design to 
estimate high grading;
    b. Revised catch report form;
    c. Consider mandatory Vessel Monitoring System;
    d. Impact of expanding live fishery product;
    e. 1997 harvest guideline;
    f. Trap design study;
    g. NMFS research activities;
    h. Concerns of industry; and
    i. Other crustacean issues;
    4. Ecosystem and habitat issues (coral reef resources, whale 
sanctuary, etc.); and
    5. Other business as required.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-
522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to meeting date.

    Dated: March 7, 1997.
Bruce Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-6448 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA


### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JOHN DINALLO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jacqueline Dinallo, Deceased

,

Appellant

,

v.

CHARLES KAYAT, P.A.; ALKA NAIR, M.D.; and GULF COAST HMA

PHYSICIAN MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a GULF COAST MEDICAL GROUP

SARASOTA PRIMARY CARE

,

Appellee s

.

No. 2D 20 22

- 4194

May 1, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen Walker, Judge

.

Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, PLLC, Jacksonville, for Appellant

.

Therese A. Savona of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando; Lissette Gonzalez and Carly M. Weiss of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami; and Scott A. Cole and Rook Elizabeth Ringer of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.2

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS , JJ., Concur.

__________________________

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.