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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 97

    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
    authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to 
         transnational organized crime, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. Buchanan (for himself and Ms. Titus) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to 
    authorize rewards for thwarting wildlife trafficking linked to 
         transnational organized crime, 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 ``Rescuing Animals With Rewards Act of 
2019'' or the ``RAWR Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Wildlife trafficking is a major transnational crime 
        that is estimated to generate over $10 billion a year in 
        illegal profits and which is increasingly perpetrated by 
        organized, sophisticated criminal enterprises, including known 
        terrorist organizations.
            (2) Wildlife trafficking not only threatens endangered 
        species worldwide, but also jeopardizes local security, spreads 
        disease, undermines rule of law, fuels corruption, and damages 
        economic development.
            (3) Combating wildlife trafficking requires a coordinated 
        and sustained approach at the global, regional, national, and 
        local levels.
            (4) Congress stated in the Eliminate, Neutralize, and 
        Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 that it is the policy 
        of the United States to take immediate actions to stop the 
        illegal global trade in wildlife and wildlife products and 
        associated transnational organized crime.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
Department of State's rewards program is a powerful tool in combating 
sophisticated international crime and that the Department of State and 
Federal law enforcement should work in concert to offer rewards that 
target wildlife traffickers.

SEC. 3. REWARDS FOR JUSTICE.

    Subparagraph (B) of section 36(k)(5) of the State Department Basic 
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(k)(5)) is amended by inserting 
``wildlife trafficking (as defined by section 2(12) of the Eliminate, 
Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 (16 U.S.C. 
7601(12); Public Law 114-231)) and'' after ``includes''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED
 CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
 STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          62,444
<SECURITIES>                                    46,038
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,637
<INVENTORY>                                     52,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               281,247
<PP&E>                                       1,250,055
<DEPRECIATION>                                 676,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 879,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,629
<BONDS>                                        388,248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     233,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   879,800
<SALES>                                        808,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               808,622
<CGS>                                          941,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  941,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               220,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (344,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,577)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (319,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.59)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7242]



[[Page 13595]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 869]


Application of the Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County Port 
Authority To Expand FTZ Subzone 78A, Nissan Motor Manufacturing 
Corporation U.S.A., Smyrna, TN

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    After consideration of the application submitted to the Foreign-
Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Metropolitan Nashville-
Davidson County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 78 (filed 2-21-96), 
requesting authority to expand FTZ Subzone 78A (Nissan Motor 
Manufacturing Corporation U.S.A., plant, Smyrna, Tennessee) to include 
a new plant site (engines/transaxles) in Decherd, Tennessee, the Board, 
finding that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public 
interest, approves the application.
    The approval is subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28. The Secretary of Commerce, as Chairman of the 
Board, is hereby authorized to issue a grant of authority and 
appropriate Board Order.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-7242 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Mary L. BECKNER, individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-56945

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*699Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 26, 2018

Mary L. Beckner, Pro Se-

John W. Amberg, Esquire, Colin Dailey, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This matter has been stayed since February 2, 2015, pending issuance of the mandate in *Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*No. 10-56884, or further order of the court. We hereby lift the stay.

Mary L. Beckner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Kwan v. SanMedica Int'l,*854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

Dismissal of Beckner’s FDCPA claims was proper because the alleged communications were not attempts to collect a “debt” as defined by the FDCPA. *See Ho v. ReconTrust Co.,*858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[Ajctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure ... are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”); *see also Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,*852 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity ... *only*through Section 1692f(6),” and that “[a]s for the remaining FDCPA provisions, ‘debt collection’ refers only to the collection of a money debt”).

Dismissal of Beckner’s FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) was proper because Beckner failed to allege facts sufficient to show that ReconTrust Company’s conduct was unfair or unconscionable. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6); *Ho,*858 F.3d at 572-73 (determining that 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) protects a consumer against abusive practices of a security enforcer); *Dowers,*852 F.3d at 971 (discussing protections for borrowers under § 1692f(6)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling on ReconTrust Company’s motion to dismiss without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D, Cal. Civ. R. 7-15; *Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara,*344 F.3d 822, 832 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court was within its discretion to dispense with oral argument.” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Beckner’s request to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                 SUBSIDIARIES

Lyondell FSC, Inc.

Lyondell General Methanol Company

Lyondell Limited Methanol Company

Lyondell Mont Belvieu Corporation

Lyondell Petrochemical de Mexico, Inc.

Lyondell Refining Company

Lyondell Transportation Company
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES COURTLAND SMITH,

Claimant - Appellant,

and

ASSORTED JEWELRY; $5,116.05 IN UNITED

STATES CURRENCY; 1985 MERCEDES BENZ, VIN

WDBDA24C3FFO76122; 1988 BLACK JAGUAR XJ6,

VIN SAJKV1545JC517422,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey, II, Senior District

Judge. (CA-89-851-H, CA-89-852-H, CA-89-853-H, CA-89-2356-H)

Submitted: April 22, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Charles Courtland Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs

Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles Smith appeals the district court's order denying his

1996 motion for reconsideration of four civil forfeitures that

occurred in 1990. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Smith, Nos. CA-89-851-H; CA-89-852-H; CA-89-853-H; CA-89-2356-H (D.

Md. Nov. 6, 1996). 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
Presidential Documents

11067

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 46

Monday, March 10, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6977 of March 5, 1997

National Poison Prevention Week, 1997

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

This year, as we observe National Poison Prevention Week, we highlight

two achievements: the effectiveness of child-resistant packaging required

by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the lifesaving

work of the Nation’s poison control centers. These public health efforts

have reduced childhood poisoning deaths from 450 deaths in 1961 to 50

deaths in 1993. However, according to the American Association of Poison

Control Centers, over one million children each year are exposed to potentially poisonous medicines and household chemicals.

Virtually all poisonings are preventable, and we must continue to inform

parents, grandparents, and caregivers how to prevent childhood poisonings.

The Poison Prevention Week Council, a coalition of 39 national organizations

determined to stop accidental poisonings, distributes valuable information

used by poison control centers, pharmacies, public health departments, and

others to conduct poison prevention programs in their communities.

Simple safety measures—such as correctly using child-resistant packaging

and keeping potentially harmful substances locked away from children—

can save lives. And if a poisoning occurs, a poison control center can

offer quick and lifesaving intervention.

The CPSC requires child-resistant packaging for many medicines and household chemicals. A recent CPSC study showed that every year approximately

24 children’s lives are saved by child-resistant packaging for oral prescription

medicines. The CPSC recently took action to ensure that child-resistant

packaging will be easier for adults to use as well. This, in turn, will increase

the use of child-resistant packaging, preventing more poisonings.

To encourage Americans to learn more about the dangers of accidental

poisonings and to take more preventive measures, the Congress, by joint

resolution approved September 26, 1961 (75 Stat. 681), has authorized and

requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week

of March of each year as ‘‘National Poison Prevention Week.’’

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, do hereby proclaim March 16 through March 22, 1997, as

National Poison Prevention Week. I call upon all Americans to observe

this week by participating in appropriate ceremonies and activities and

by learning how to prevent accidental poisonings among children.
11068 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 46 / Monday, March 10, 1997 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of

March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 97–6105

Filed 3–7–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and twenty-first.

œ–
RICHTON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

                   DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING

                                DECEMBER 31, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                     average
                                                                     -------
                     
    Shares outstanding                       weighted average --    2,949,447
 
               amount     exer price      ave mkt price
              --------    ----------      -------------
 Warrants 
              236,250        1.375            4.625
                             
              100,000            3            4.625                   201,149
                             
 Options                     
              270,000         2.20            4.625                   139,422
                                                                   ----------

                 Total                                              3,290,018
                                                                   ==========
14116 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices

Permits Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring,

MD 20910 (301/713–2289); and

Regional Administrator, Northwest

Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way,

NE BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA

98115–0070 (206–526–6150).

Written data or views, or requests for

a public hearing on this request, should

be submitted to the Director, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13130, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals

requesting a hearing should set forth the

specific reasons why a hearing on this

application would be appropriate.

Concurrent with the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

NMFS is forwarding copies of this

application to the Marine Mammal

Commission and its Committee of

Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject permit is requested under the

authority of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations

Governing the Taking and Importing of

Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The application requests

authorization to capture, restrain, tag,

and release up to 125 Dall’s porpoise

(Phocoenoides dalli) and to

unintentionally harass up to 300 Dall’s

porpoise during capture operations, in

Washington and Oregon waters, over a

five-year period. The purpose of the

research is deploy, monitor, and

evaluate improved tag designs in order

to obtain movement and dive behavior

information on Dall’s porpoise.

In compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial

determination has been made that the

activity proposed is categorically

excluded from the requirement to

prepare an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

Dated: March 18, 1997

Art Jeffers,

Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation

Division, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7530 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 97–08]

36(b) Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Pub. L.

104–164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/FPD, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 97–08,

with attached transmittal and policy

justification pages.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices 14117
14118 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Notices 14119

[FR Doc. 97–7378 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
No. 12-5295.

#### Fuller v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2018

No. 04-18-00286-CV

Jimmy MASPERO and Regina Maspero, Individually, and as Next Friends 

of Wyitt Maspero, Wynnsday Maspero, Wesley Maspero, Deceased, 

and Walter Maspero, Deceased, Minor Children,

Appellants

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI14946

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s reply brief is due on December 20, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). 

Before the due date, Appellant filed an unopposed first motion for an extension of time to file the 

reply brief. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s reply brief is due on January 2, 2019. 

See id. R. 38.6(d). 

It is so ORDERED on December 13, 2018.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
# C_2021502EN.01003402.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/34

---

Action brought on 23 September 2021 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -))

(Case T-612/21)

(2021/C 502/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: EU design Remote controls [wireless] (Accessories for -) — EU design No 4 539 302-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 1072/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to bear their own costs, and order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, (1) as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration);

| — | Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 63(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 63(2) thereof, and breaches of the rule of law established in DOCERAM, C-395/16, as well as infringement of Article 41(2)(c) and Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration).

---

(1)  Judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172.

---