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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 190 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 190

      To provide for expedited removal of certain illegal aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Ogles (for himself, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Brecheen, 
  Ms. Mace, and Mr. Moore of Alabama) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide for expedited removal of certain illegal aliens.

    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 ``Sending Evading Non-Documented 
Threats Home Especially Migrants Biden Accepted Carelessly and 
Knowingly Act of 2025'' or the ``SEND THEM BACK Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ILLEGAL ALIENS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
alien who entered the United States illegally on or since January 20, 
2021, shall be subject to expedited removal, even if such alien 
indicated an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any alien who is 
currently a member of the Armed Forces of the United States as of 
January 1, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
Case 5:04-cv-00242-C Document 13 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 139 

To make daylight savings time permanent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BUCHANAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To make daylight savings time permanent, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sunshine Protection 

5 Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MAKING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME PERMANENT. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR DAYLIGHT

8 SAVINGS TIME.—Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 

9 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is hereby repealed. 

10 (b) ADVANCEMENT OF STANDARD TIME.— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 139 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of sub2 section (a) of section 1 of the Act of March 19, 

3 1918 (commonly known as the ‘‘Calder Act’’) (15 

4 U.S.C. 261), is amended— 

5 (A) by striking ‘‘4 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘3 

6 hours’’; 

7 (B) by striking ‘‘5 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘4 

8 hours’’; 

9 (C) by striking ‘‘6 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘5 

10 hours’’; 

11 (D) by striking ‘‘7 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘6 

12 hours’’; 

13 (E) by striking ‘‘8 hours’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘by 7 hours’’; 

15 (F) by striking ‘‘9 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘8 

16 hours’’; 

17 (G) by striking ‘‘10 hours;’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘9 hours;’’; 

19 (H) by striking ‘‘11 hours’’ and inserting 

20 ‘‘10 hours’’; and 

21 (I) by striking ‘‘10 hours.’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘11 hours.’’. 

23 (2) STATE EXEMPTION.—Such section is fur24 ther amended by— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 139 IH

1 (A) redesignating subsection (b) as sub2 section (c); and 

3 (B) inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) STANDARD TIME FOR CERTAIN STATES AND

6 AREAS.—The standard time for a State that has exempted 

7 itself from the provisions of section 3(a) of the Uniform 

8 Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), as in effect on 

9 the day before the date of the enactment of the Sunshine 

10 Protection Act of 2025, pursuant to such section, or an 

11 area of a State that has exempted such area from such 

12 provisions pursuant to such section, shall be, as such State 

13 considers appropriate— 

14 ‘‘(1) the standard time for such State or area, 

15 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

16 this section; or 

17 ‘‘(2) the standard time for such State or area, 

18 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

19 this section as it was in effect on the day before the 

20 date of the enactment of the Sunshine Protection 

21 Act of 2025.’’. 

22 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Such section 

23 is further amended, in the second sentence of sub24 section (a), by striking ‘‘Except as provided in sec25 tion 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 139 IH

1 U.S.C. 260a),’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in 

2 subsection (b),’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Case 3:03-cv-00890-R Document 25 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 108
* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60302

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALLEN MORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:04-CV-72

USDC NO. 2:02-CR-74-1

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

Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Allen Morris, federal prisoner # 11614-042, was

convicted following a guilty plea to possession with intent to

distribute in excess of five grams of a mixture and substance

containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). He was

sentenced to concurrent terms of 230 months and 120 months of

imprisonment. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set
No. 06-60302

-2-

aside, or correct his sentence. The district court dismissed

Morris’s claims, but preserved for further briefing Morris’s

claim regarding the drug quantity used to determine his sentence. 

The record does not indicate that the district court has ruled

upon the drug quantity issue. Morris now seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s partial

dismissal of his § 2255 claims.

In general, courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals

from all final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. Similarly, in a § 2255 proceeding, “the final order

shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals

for the circuit in which the proceeding is held” and a COA is to

be issued from a “final order.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a) and (c)(1). 

Moreover, the district court is required to “deny a COA as to

each issue presented by the applicant.” Whitehead v. Johnson,

157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998) (§ 2254 proceeding).

Given that the district court did not rule on and ordered

further briefing on Morris’s drug quantity claim, the judgment

denying Morris’s other § 2255 claims was not a final order and

appellate jurisdiction does not exist. See Young v. Herring, 777

F.2d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Morris’s motion for

COA is denied, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. Morris’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is also

denied.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that th i s

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

September 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10303

Summary Calendar

In The Matter Of: Walter G. Berry, III

Debtor,

MACLEAN ODDY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Appellant,

versus

DANIEL SHERMAN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District f Texas, Dallas Division

C.A. No. 3:03-CV-1557-K

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Nor t hern

District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the debtor

upon finding that the debtor’s pre-petition payment to Maclean Oddy

constituted an avoidable preference beca use Maclean Oddy was an

unsecured creditor at the time the payment was made. The district

court affirmed.2 On appeal, Maclean Oddy asserts that the pre-petition

payment was not an avoidable preference because: (1) it created a

security interest by filing a judicial lien, an abstract of

judgment, outside of the 90-day preference period; (2) a subsequent

escrow agreement continued the security interest create d by the

abstract o f judgment; (3) a new trial order (in the case that

spawned the lien) did not void ab initio its security interest

because the escrow agreement was executed prior to the entry of the

new trial order; and (4) it did not receive more than it would have

received had the transfer not occ urred. In the alternative,

Maclean Oddy argues that its contemporaneous re lease of the

security interest in exchange for the escrow payment pursuant to a

settlement agreement entered into with the debtor constituted a

contemporaneous exchange for value or new value so as to avoid the

transfer.

Maclean Oddy has failed to cite, and we have been unable

to find, federal or Texas state authority in support of Maclean

Oddy’s contentions. Thus, after careful review of the briefs and

record, we find no reason to reverse the bankruptcy court’s

judgment or the district court’s affirmance. The judgments of

those courts are

AFFIRMED.
Gregory WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2125

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, William G. Dumencu, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OccuLogix, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 6, 2005                                       /s/ William G. Dumencu
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         William G. Dumencu
                                                         Chief Financial Officer



                                      -28-
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT 0F 2002

         I, Stephen Farkas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of AAMPRO Group, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June
30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report of AAMPRO Group, Inc. on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AAMPRO Group,
Inc.

                                     By:   /s/ Stephen Farkas
                                           ---------------------------
                                     Name: Stephen Farkas
                                     Title:Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Chief Financial Officer

     August 22, 2005
STATE of Louisiana v. Tracy KENT

NO. 2018-KH-1491

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
# C_2016270EN.01005501.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/55

---

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)

(Case T-273/16)

(2016/C 270/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METAPORN’ — Application for registration No 11 819 281

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2

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;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

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 Articles 75 et seq of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 75 et seq of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the EUIPO’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the EUIPO’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Airvana, Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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)
    
    [Not applicable];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 6, 2008
    /s/ Jeffrey D. GliddenJeffrey D. GliddenVice President, Chief Financial Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Charles STEWART

NO. 2019-KH-0211

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

*1124Denied. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
12/04/2024

Case 24-50283-rlj7 Doc 18 Filed 12/04/24 Entered 12/04/24 15:11:58 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31691]

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

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 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1127 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-908, K2025-909.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31691 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```