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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 931 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 931

Recognizing the exceptional service of Ambassador Michael Herzog during 
        his tenure as Ambassador of Israel to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 17 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

  Mr. Graham (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the exceptional service of Ambassador Michael Herzog during 
        his tenure as Ambassador of Israel to the United States.

Whereas, since November 15, 2021, Ambassador Michael Herzog has served as 
        Ambassador of Israel to the United States;
Whereas, prior to serving as Ambassador of Israel to the United States, 
        Ambassador Herzog served the State of Israel as--

    (1) the head of the Strategic Planning Division;

    (2) Military Secretary and Chief of Staff to four Defense Ministers; 
and

    (3) a special envoy for diplomatic negotiations for the Prime Minister;

Whereas, during his entire tenure as Ambassador of Israel to the United States, 
        Ambassador Herzog has worked in a bipartisan manner, stating, 
        ``Bipartisan support for Israel is a fundamental component of our 
        relations with the United States'';
Whereas Ambassador Herzog has been one of the most effective voices for the 
        State of Israel and has been instrumental in meeting Israel's needs 
        during this traumatic time in the history of the Jewish State; and
Whereas Ambassador Herzog has worked tirelessly to build on the success of the 
        Abraham Accords and advance normalization efforts between the State of 
        Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the exceptional service of Ambassador 
        Michael Herzog during his tenure as Ambassador of Israel to the 
        United States;
            (2) commends Ambassador Herzog for his commitment to 
        building a more peaceful region through his work to further 
        expand upon the Abraham Accords; and
            (3) encourages the United States and the State of Israel to 
        continue to build off the work Ambassador Herzog has done 
        during his tenure to ensure the relationship between Israel and 
        the United States continues to grow and prosper.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021278EN.01004401.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/44

---

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-233/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 278/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2020 (Case R 1544/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
# C_2022119EN.01003701.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 –Verelst v Council

(Case T-647/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by Belgium - Rules applicable to the appointment of the European Prosecutors)

(2022/C 119/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Michel Verelst (Éghezée, Belgium) (represented by: C. Molitor, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak, R. Meyer and K. Kouri, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Van Regemorter and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p. 18) in so far as it appoints Mr Yves Van Den Berge as a European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and rejects the candidacy of the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-Michel Verelst to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-Michel Verelst to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2021.

---
Case 5:04-mc-00004-C Document 1 Filed 02/11/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1
Case 5:04-mc-00004-C Document 1 Filed 02/11/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2
# C_2016287EN.01002301.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/23

---

Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

(Case T-252/16)

(2016/C 287/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 438

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2239/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin. |
| --- | --- |

—

The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin.

---
Lance William PARKER v. MUNICIPALITY OF OXFORD

2160467

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Arnold D. FELDMAN, MD v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

NO. 2019-00011

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

*297Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 112 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 112

To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and 
                    other related subsidy programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
 to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on 
 Oversight and Government Reform, and Science, Space, and Technology, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the Department of Agriculture bioenergy subsidy programs and 
                    other related subsidy programs.

    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 ``Farewell to Unnecessary Energy 
Lifelines Reform Act of 2025'' or the ``FUEL Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOENERGY SUBSIDY PROGRAMS 
              AND OTHER RELATED SUBSIDY PROGRAMS.

    Title IX of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
U.S.C. 8101 et seq.) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Lisa ZELNICK, Appellant, v. Marilyn EAKIN, Individually and as Trustee of the Eakin Revocable Living Trust Dated February 9, 1989 and Restated January 3, 2014, Richard A. Gatza, Thomas R. Gatza, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-92

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

Alec D. Russell and Tiffany M. Walters, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant.

Scott Krasny, of Krasny and Dettmer, Melbourne, for Appellee, Marilyn Eakin individually and as Trustee of the Eakin Revocable Living Trust, Tracy J. Adams, of Fidelity National Law Group, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee A.N.A. Real Property Development, LLC.

No appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
# C_2016211EN.01005901.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/59

---

Action brought on 6 April 2016 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Bloss and Others (CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE)

(Case T-155/16)

(2016/C 211/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: S. Rohlfing and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michael Bloss (Nürtingen, Germany), Dietmar Ernst (Nürtingen), Joachim Häcker (Nürtingen)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED FINANCIAL ENGINEER CFE’ — Application for registration No 9 569 765

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 454/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the opposition filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application No 9 569 765 by the participants;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, or; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, or;

| — | in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in case the participants will join the proceedings as interveners, to order the participants to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff both in the appeal proceedings before the EUIPO and in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 5, 2017

NO. 03-17-00683-CV

Jane Doe and John Doe, Appellants

v.

Arguello Hope & Associates, PLLC; Philip K. Broderick, Individually;

Andres A. Arguello, Individually; Samantha Fenwich, Individually; Schavon J. Jahn;

and Albert Zavala, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 5, 2017. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Heather GOELOE, et al. v. ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0010

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
J.G. v. B.G.

2160059

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 130 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 130

    To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations 
   removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened 
           wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Ms. Boebert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations 
   removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened 
           wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

    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 ``Trust the Science Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED AND 
              THREATENED WILDLIFE.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final rule entitled 
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf 
(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and 
published on November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).

SEC. 3. NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    Reissuance of the final rule under section 2 shall not be subject 
to judicial review.
                                 <all>
```
OFFICE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF ‘TEXAS 

AUSTlN 

Hea. L, A. PoQdll 

mate ~4pertatsndent 

.&tin, T 0 x 8 8 

Dscr Plxr Att% I Hr. P. ?d. Trisbl~ / 

\
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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 7, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1199 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-997, K2025-996.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00025 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EX PARTE Ashley Brooke CRUTCHFIELD

1160803 (CR-15-1098)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance F. HUDSON a.k.a. "Pepper"

NO. 2018-KO-1152

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

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

In connection  with the Annual Report of Trend Mining Company (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB/A  for the  year  ended  September  30,  2005,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
Loucks,  Principal  Executive  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.

February 23, 2006


/s/ Thomas A. Loucks
-----------------------------
Thomas A. Loucks
Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Richard J. Linder, President and CEO of Rubicon Medical Corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
                  year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d));
                  and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: April 15, 2005                                 /s/ Richard J. Linder
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Richard J. Linder
                                                    President and CEO



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Rubicon Medical Corporation and will be
retained by Rubicon Medical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Daniel Shawn BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.14****Compensation of Directors****Nonemployee Directors****:**Compensation of Nonemployee Directors, aside from that providedpursuant to the Company’s incentive plans, is as follows:     **Retainer:**Base: $33,000 per yearServing as a committee chair: Additional $15,000 per year     **Compensation for Attendance at Meetings:**$1,100 for each Board meeting$1,100 for each Committee meeting     **Deferred Share Units:**The Hydril Company 2000 Incentive Plan provides for an automatic annualnonqualified stock option award to each non-employee director for 3,000 shares of common stock. In2006, the non-employee directors waived the automatic grant and, in lieu of the options, eachnon-employee director was awarded 2,000 deferred share units. The awards will vest and becomepayable in full on June 1, 2009. Upon vesting, the deferred share units are settled in cash at thethen fair market value of the common stock on a one-for-one basis. As the deferred share unitscannot result in the issuance of shares of Hydril common stock, they are not issued in connectionwith any Hydril incentive plan. See the form of deferred share unit agreement filed as an exhibitto the Company’s reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for more information.     **Pension Plan:**Richard Seaver is a participant in the Hydril Company Retirement Plan.**Employee Directors****:**Richard Seaver is regarded as an employee of Hydril and was paid$175,000 by Hydril in 2006. Directors who are employees of Hydril receive no additionalcompensation for serving on the Board of Directors. See the Company’s other disclosures in itsreports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and exhibits filed therewith regarding executivecompensation for a description of compensation.**Reimbursement of Expenses****:**All directors are reimbursed for transportation, lodging, mealsand other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors orcommittees thereof, including for their spouse for one meeting each year, and for other expensesincurred in their capacity as directors.
Jermaine Bernard WALLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-889

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.