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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5026 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5026

     To designate the Investigations Building of the Food and Drug 
  Administration located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, 
             Puerto Rico, as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2006

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To designate the Investigations Building of the Food and Drug 
  Administration located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, 
             Puerto Rico, as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Investigations Building of the Food and Drug Administration 
located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Andres Toro 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-9900.

#### Anthony Leon McClain, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

560 U.S. 913, 130 S. Ct. 3309,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1199,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3948.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 849.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1183

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Laeric West

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: September 6, 2013

Filed: September 16, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Laeric West pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced him

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas.
to 120 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and a $10,000 fine. West

appeals. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the court procedurally erred in calculating West’s Guidelines

sentencing range by applying an enhancement under USSG §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (4-level

increase for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense).

We review the sentence first for significant procedural error and second for

substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th

Cir. 2011). As to counsel’s argument, reviewing the district court’s application ofthe

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error, see United States v.

Sanchez, 676 F.3d 627, 632 (8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the court did not clearly

err by crediting police officer Bain Potter’s testimony, see United States v. Smith, 681

F.3d 932, 935 (8th Cir. 2012) (credibility determinations made at sentencing are

virtually unassailable on appeal), and it did not err by determining based on Potter’s

testimony that West possessed the firearm in connection with a felony drugtrafficking offense, see United States v. Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d 1162, 1175 (8thCir.

2008) (when application of §2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement involves drug-trafficking

felony, court must apply enhancement unless it is clearly improbable that guns were

possessed in connection with drug offense). We also conclude that West’s sentence

is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th

Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and

according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines

range); United States v. Knox, 634 F.3d 461, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding that

district court duly addressed defendant’s ability to pay fine where it considered

defendant’s assets and liabilities and created payment plan).

After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirmthe judgment,

and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about

procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7829

PEDRO GARCIA QUINTERO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JOSE ARELLANO; VICTOR HERNANDEZ; ANTONIO

HERNANDEZ; LORENZO ROJAS; JUAN HERRERA; ARTURO

NAVARRETE; FLORENTINO BOJORQUEZ,

Plaintiffs,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; U.S. IMMIGRATION &

NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-703-5-H)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Pedro Garcia Quintero, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Garcia Quintero appeals the district court’s order

dismissing several of the 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998)

claims as frivolous, but allowing several other claims to proceed.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. (the“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Nikolas Antonopoulos, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated: July 29, 2005 By:/s/   *Nikolas Antonopoulos*    Nikolas Antonopoulos
<PAGE>



                  EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Tricord Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-65784, 33-76532 and 333-04701)
of our reports, dated February 26, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Tricord Systems, Inc.
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997,
1996, 1995, which reports are included or incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                                  COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 1998
---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth Hicks, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of
Argentex Mining Corporation;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this
  report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
  a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
  under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
  covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial
  statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
  present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
  and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
  report;

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

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

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

(c)      Disclosed
  in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial reporting
  that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially
  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
  control over financial reporting; and

5.      The small business issuers
  other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
  of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and
  the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing
  the equivalent functions):

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

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

Date: April 8, 2008

|/s/
      Kenneth Hicks       | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Kenneth Hicks                 | 
|President and Director        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) | 

---
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 8, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 02-30944

_______________

JOHN KNOX AND DENISE KNOX,

ON BEHALF OF JACOB KNOX, ON BEHALF OF LOGAN KNOX, ON BEHALF OF BAYLEE KNOX,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

RHODIA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

m 01-CV-263-C2

____________

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

John Knox and his wife sued Rhodia, Inc.,

for injuries Knox sustained on the job. The

district court entered summary judgment for

Rhodia, Inc., on the basis that it is Knox’s

statutory employer and thus is immune from

*

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 circum-

(continued...)

*

(...continued)

stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

tort liability under Louisiana law.

We have read the briefs, applicable portions

of the record, and the pertinent authorities,

and have heard the arguments of counsel.

Finding no error in the careful explanation of

the district court, we affirm, essentially for the

reasons given by that court. Knox has failed

to overcome the presumption that Rhodia,

Inc., is his statutory employer.

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zaldiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB-A1 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Nicole Leigh van Coller, President, and Christopher R. Ebersole, CFO 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:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Dated: 5-25-07                         /s/Nicole Leigh van Coller ----------                       -------------------------- Nicole Leigh van Coller President  Dated: 5-25-07                         /s/Christopher R. Ebersole ----------                       -------------------------- Christopher R. Ebersole CFO
No. 09-8259.

#### Mike Redford, Petitioner v. Gwinnett County Judicial Circuit, et al.

559 U.S. 1047, 130 S. Ct. 2366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2986.

176 L. Ed. 2d 560,

April 5, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
**Exhibit 10.2****Sourcefire, Inc.**August 10, 2007Mr. Joseph Boyle**Re:**     **Separation Agreement**Dear Joe:As discussed, this letter describes the separation and consulting agreement (the “Agreement”)between you and Sourcefire, Inc. (the “Company”).     **1. Separation from Current Position.**As we have mutually agreed, your last day of work withthe Company and your employment termination date will be September 4, 2007 (the “Separation Date”).     **2. Accrued Salary and Vacation.**On the next regular payroll date following the SeparationDate, the Company will pay you all accrued salary and all accrued and unused vacation earnedthrough the Separation Date, subject to standard payroll deductions and withholdings. You willreceive these payments regardless of whether or not you sign this Agreement.     **3. Severance Benefits.**Although the Company has no obligation to do so, if you execute and donot revoke this Agreement, the Company will provide the severance benefits described below (the“Severance Benefits”), provided that you are not in material breach of this Agreement or any otherwritten agreement you may have executed with the Company. These Severance Benefits will be in lieuof any severance payment you would otherwise be entitled to under your offer letter agreement datedApril 21, 2006, which will be terminated in all respects as of the Separation Date.          **(a) Stock Options.**Pursuant to the Company’s stock option plan (the “Plan”), your stockoption will be vested as to 44,257 shares of the Company’s common stock as of the Separation Date.The Company hereby agrees to accelerate vesting of this option such that, as of the SeparationDate, you will be vested in an additional 21,167 shares of the Company’s common stock. Your rightsto exercise your option as to any vested shares will be as set forth in the Plan and/or yourNonstatutory Stock Option Grant Agreement dated April 27, 2006, which will survive following theSeparation Date.          **(b) COBRA Reimbursement.**If you are currently participating in the Company’s group healthinsurance plans, to the extent provided by the federal COBRA law or, if applicable, state insurancelaws, and by the Company’s current group health insurance policies, you will be eligible tocontinue your group health insurance benefits at your own expense. Later, you may be able toconvert to an individual policy through the provider of the Company’s health insurance, if youwish. If you timely elect and remain eligible for continued coverage under COBRA, the Company, aspart of this Agreement, will reimburse you for that portion of your
 

 
Mr. Joseph Boyle
**EXHIBIT 10.3**
**SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**
Each of the parties identified in the table below is party to an employmentagreement with Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. substantially in the form attachedto the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. Form 10 as Exhibit 10.6(a). Each party’semployment agreement is identical except for such party’s base salary,position, agreement date and prior agreements, each of which is set forth inthe table below. The Agreements of Messrs. Meier and Trenary were amended inOctober 2004 for the purpose of reflecting their new titles and adjustedsalaries.           **EMPLOYEE NAME** **BASE SALARY** **POSITION** **AGREEMENT DATE** **PRIOR AGREEMENTS**Aimee S. Weisner $215,000  Corporate VicePresident, GeneralCounsel andSecretary January 18, 2002 Retention Agreementamong the Company,Allergan and theExecutive datedJanuary 18, 2002           Jane E. Rady $250,000  Corporate VicePresident, Strategyand Technology April 8, 2002 Agreement betweenAllergan andExecutive datedApril 8, 2002           C. Russell Trenary III $300,000  Corporate VicePresident and ChiefMarketing Officer April 24, 2002,amended October 1,2004 Agreement betweenAllergan andExecutive datedApril 24, 2002           Richard A. Meier $375,900  Executive VicePresident ofOperations andFinance, and ChiefFinancial Officer April 8, 2002,amended October 1,2004 Agreement betweenAllergan andExecutive datedApril 8, 2002
# C_2017253EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8537 — Moody’s/Bureau Van Dijk Electronic Publishing)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 253/01)

On 28 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8537. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8537. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Kenneth Smith et al., Respondents, v Paul K. Taylor, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 686]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated June 19, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff, Kenneth Smith (hereinafter the plaintiff), voluntarily agreed to help the defendant’s son remove a tree from the defendant’s property. The plaintiff brought his *567own ladder and chainsaw to the defendant’s property. The plaintiff climbed his ladder and proceeded to cut a branch that he determined should be removed to provide space for him. The branch fell to the ground, hit the base of the ladder, and the plaintiff fell off the ladder.

A landowner owes a duty to another on his land to keep it in a reasonably safe condition *(see, Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 241). However, where, as here, the injury resulted not from any unsafe condition of the defendant’s land but as a direct result of the plaintiff’s use of his own equipment while engaged in an activity he volunteered to undertake, the landowner is not liable *(see, Macey v Truman,*70 NY2d 918, 919; *Collins v Petroski,*155 AD2d 799). Under these circumstances, “the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” *(Macey v Truman, supra,*at 919).

The plaintiffs affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion stated that the defendant told him which branches to cut. However, this was designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony where he stated that he determined to cut the branch that caused the accident. Therefore, the affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence *(see, Bloom v La Femme Fatale,*273 AD2d 187). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
# C_2017286EN.01000302.xml

| 30.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 11 May 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8228(2) — Facebook/WhatsApp (ART.14(1) proc.)

Rapporteur: France

(2017/C 286/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee (5 Member States) agrees with the factors taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of determining the level of the fines to be imposed on Facebook pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee (5 Member States) agrees with the factors taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of determining the level of the fines to be imposed on Facebook pursuant to Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation (1).

1

| 2. | The Advisory Committee (5 Member States) agrees with the actual level of the fines proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee (5 Member States) agrees with the actual level of the fines proposed by the Commission.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the ‘Merger Regulation’) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

1

---
No. 11-7497.

#### Ampazzio W. Warren, Petitioner v. Virginia.

565 U.S. 1180, 132 S. Ct. 1147,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1021,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 997.

January 23, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
No. 11-6068.

#### Ruben Jordan, Petitioner v. Millicent Warren, Warden.

565 U.S. 954, 132 S. Ct. 426,

181 L. Ed. 2d 277,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7394.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.