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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 181 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 181

      To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that 
 artificially propagated animals shall be treated the same under that 
      Act as naturally propagated animals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. McClintock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that 
 artificially propagated animals shall be treated the same under that 
      Act as naturally propagated animals, 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. TREATMENT OF ARTIFICIALLY PROPAGATED ANIMALS.

    Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) Treatment of Artificially Propagated Animals.--The Secretary 
shall not distinguish between naturally propagated animals and 
artificially propagated animals in making any determination under this 
Act.''.

SEC. 2. ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 14 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(relating to repeals of provisions of law, which have executed) is 
amended to read as follows:

            ``artificial propagation for mitigation purposes

    ``Sec. 14. The Secretary shall authorize the use of artificial 
propagation of animals of a species for purposes of any mitigation 
required under this Act with respect to such species.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
section of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to such 
section and inserting the following:

``Sec. 14. Artificial propagation for mitigation purposes.''.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to a 
species without regard to whether the species was determined to be an 
endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SENIOR'S CLUB LLC /SENIORS CLUB ADHC AND PCA CENTER, Mr. T.J. McCoy, Jr. and Mrs. Karen McCoy v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0075

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, § 5.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

HIGHMARK, INC. §

 §

VS. § CIVIL NO. 4:03-CV-1384-Y

 §

ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT § 

SYSTEMS, INC. §

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION 

AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

On June 17, 2010, the Court conducted a hearing on the pro se

Emergency Motion to Reconsider (doc. #662) filed by defendant

Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”). In that

motion, Allcare sought reconsideration of this Court’s order

allowing the McKool Smith law firm to withdraw as Allcare’s counsel

in this case. According to Allcare, it has been unable to retain

new counsel and, because of its status as a corporation, cannot

respond PRO SE to briefing before the Court on the issue of the

amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff Highmark, Inc.

(“Highmark”). 

Having reviewed the briefing and heard the arguments at the

hearing, the Court ORDERS the following:

(1) To the extent that Allcare’s emergency motion seeks to

have the order allowing McKool Smith and its attorneys to withdraw

from this case, that motion is DENIED.

(2) To the extent the emergency motion seeks an extension of

time to respond to Highmark’s briefing on the amount of attorneys’

fees as an alternative to reconsideration of the order allowing

McKool Smith’s withdrawal, the motion is GRANTED. Allcare must

file its response no later than July 21, 2010, and must do so

through counsel.

(3) The Court WITHDRAWS its request of counsel for Highmark to

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 627 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID 16304
2

submit a motion to stay or abate. The Court will endeavor to rule

on the currently pending motions to reconsider Rule 11 sanctions

prior to and apart from its ruling on the amount of attorneys’ fees

to be awarded to Highmark under 35 U.S.C. § 285. And the Court

will make clear the evidence properly before the Court and

considered in making each ruling in order to make these issues

clear to the appellate court. 

SIGNED June 18, 2010.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-01384-Y Document 627 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID 16305
Reginald PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2949

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021182EN.01005501.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/55

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 19 March 2021 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission

(Case T-742/20 R)

(Application for interim relief - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance mancozeb - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2021/C 182/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 of 14 December 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Micah SOLOMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4785

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2019016EN.01001602.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-330/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Article 2(18) - Article 23(1) - Transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Information - Indication of the final price to be paid - Inclusion of the air fare in the final price to be paid - Obligation to indicate air fares in euros or local currency - Choice of the relevant local currency - Connecting factors))

(2019/C 16/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Baden-Württemberg eV

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 23(1) in conjunction with Article 2(18) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, when indicating air fares for intra-Community air services, air carriers who do not express those fares in euros are required to choose a local currency that is objectively linked to the service offered. That is the case in particular of the currency which is legal tender in the Member State in which the place of departure or arrival of the flight is located.

Thus, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which an air carrier established in a Member State in which the euro is legal tender offers on the internet an air service for which the place of departure of the flight is located in another Member State in which a currency other than the euro is legal tender, the air fares may, if they are not expressed in euros, be indicated in the currency which is legal tender in that other Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 13 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting 

the pardon power of the President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr. LEVIN) submitted 

the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States limiting the pardon power of the President. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 13 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President shall not have the power 

3 to grant pardons and reprieves to— 

4 ‘‘(1) the President’s self; 

5 ‘‘(2) any person, up to a third degree relation, 

6 of the President, or a spouse thereof; 

7 ‘‘(3) any current or former member of the 

8 President’s administration; 

9 ‘‘(4) any person who worked on the President’s 

10 presidential campaign as a paid employee; 

11 ‘‘(5) any person or entity for an offense that 

12 was motivated by a direct and significant personal or 

13 pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; 

14 or 

15 ‘‘(6) any person or entity for an offense that 

16 was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the 

17 President. 

18 ‘‘ ‘Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be in19 valid. ’. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en21 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Angela GIVENS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D19-734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2018399EN.01000601.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case C-4/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - Expenditure eligible for European Union financing - Expenditure by the Czech Republic - Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 - Article 11(3) - Concept of ‘restructuring of vineyards’))

(2018/C 399/06)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016, Czech Republic v Commission (T-141/15, not published, EU:T:2016:621); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016, Czech Republic v Commission (T-141/15, not published, EU:T:2016:621);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure by the Czech Republic under the EAGF on the measure to protect vineyards against damage caused by animals and birds for 2010 to 2012 in the total amount of EUR 2 123 199,04; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure by the Czech Republic under the EAGF on the measure to protect vineyards against damage caused by animals and birds for 2010 to 2012 in the total amount of EUR 2 123 199,04;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Czech Republic both in the proceedings at first instance and on the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Czech Republic both in the proceedings at first instance and on the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31745]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1190 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-985, K2025-984.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31745 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2021329EN.01002301.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE)

(Case T-232/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIOVÈNE - Earlier EU word mark BIORENE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 739/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Eugène Perma France and Biovene Cosmetics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Biovene Cosmetics, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
Robert PAYNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0086

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT The Board of Directors for
Enterra Energy Trust We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-120996) of our report dated March 31, 2005, except for notes 16(d), 16(e), 16(f), 17 and 18
which are as of June 30, 2005 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Enterra Energy Trust as
at December 31, 2004 and the consolidated statements of earnings and accumulated earnings and cash
flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Enterra
Energy Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. (signed) KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Canada
July 14, 2005
STATE of Louisiana v. Barry L. JONES

NO. 2019-KH-0250

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Avaya Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald K. Peterson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|/s/DONALD K. PETERSONDonald K. Peterson Chairman and Chief Executive
OfficerDecember 12, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of**

**the**

**Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of U-Store-It Trust (the “Company”), each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(a) The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2010 (the “Report”) filed on the date hereof with the Securities and ExchangeCommission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 7, 2010 | /s/ Dean Jernigan         |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
|                   | Dean Jernigan             |
| * *               | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|                   |                      |
|                   |                      |
| Date: May 7, 2010 | /s/ Timothy M. Martin     |
|                   | Timothy M. Martin         |
| * *               | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Systems Sunrise Solar Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eddie
D. Austin, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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:





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 aspects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  April
15, 2009








/s/ Eddie D.
Austin, Jr.





Eddie D.
Austin, Jr.


Chief
Executive Officer and


Principal
Financial Officer