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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 24 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 24

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ``Representative 
                       Maxine Bell Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2025

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ``Representative 
                       Maxine Bell Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE BELL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Representative Maxine Bell Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Representative Maxine Bell Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Gregg Scott KLEINSTEIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2884

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Henry WEBER

No. 2018-KH-0802

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *see* *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330, pp. 9-11 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189, 1195-96 (distinguishing habeas corpus from post-conviction relief and endorsing La.C.Cr.P. art. 351 and its cmt. (c), which states that "habeas corpus is not the proper procedural device for petitioners who may file applications for post conviction relief;" rather, it "deals with pre-conviction complaints concerning custody.").

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Case 3:04-cv-01844-R Document 6 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 18
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jack L. Wyszomierski, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc.;

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

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Jack L.  Wyszomierski                                  |   |
| Title:*Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |   |
| Date:  August 12, 2005                                  |   |

 

----
# C_2018408EN.01001902.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X v Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

(Case C-175/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 39 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for asylum and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))

(2018/C 408/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State — Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, W. Donald Brunson, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Coastal Bancshares Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | • |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: February 2, 2006

 

|                                                                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ W. Donald Brunson

W. Donald Brunson

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 228 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and adjust for 

inflation the above-the-line deduction for teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and adjust for inflation the above-the-line deduction for 

teachers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EX4 PENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

5 SCHOOL TEACHERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$250’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘$1000’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 62(d)(3) 

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 228 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2025’’, 

2 (2) by striking ‘‘$250’’ and inserting ‘‘$1000’’, 

3 and 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘calendar year 2014’’ and in5 serting ‘‘calendar year 2024’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin8 ning after December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Antwan Marcell ABNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2882

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2024-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2403]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Hartford County, 
Connecticut (All Jurisdictions)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing 
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, 
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood 
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone 
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as 
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports 
for Hartford County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions).

DATES: This withdrawal is effective January 8, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
2403, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering 
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 29, 2024, FEMA published a 
proposed notice at 89 FR 5554, proposing flood hazard determinations 
for Hartford County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions). FEMA is 
withdrawing the proposed notice.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

Nicholas A. Shufro,
Assistant Administrator (Acting) for Risk Management, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2025-00247 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Kelly H. Nelson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of PetroHunter EnergyCorporation, formerly known as Digital Ecosystems Corp.,(the “Registrant” or the “Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 21, 2006                                  /s/ Kelly H. Nelson   Kelly H. Nelson   Chief Executive Officer
EX PARTE Shannon GARY

1160650 (CR-15-1425)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 26 Filed 07/16/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71
# C_2017014EN.01005501.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/55

---

Action brought on 22 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Simplicity trade (opus AETERNATUM)

(Case T-815/16)

(2017/C 014/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simplicity trade GmbH (Oelde, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘opus AETERNATUM’ — Application for registration No 11 024 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2016 in Case R 152/2016-2

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 before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
BANNISTER PROPERTIES, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana

Southold Properties Inc. v. State of Louisiana

Southold Properties Inc. v. State of Louisiana

Bannister Properties, Inc. v. State of Louisiana

NO. 2019-C-0025

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
# C_2022084EN.01003701.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-225/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

(2022/C 84/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and seven other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for the month of June 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed, with retroactive effect, on 1 August 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in annex to the judgment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
H. Res. 21 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 9, 2025. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. 

Calvert, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Womack, Mr. Fleischmann, 

Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Harris of Maryland, Mr. Amodei of 

Nevada, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. 

Rutherford, Mr. Cline, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mrs. Hinson, Mr. 

Tony Gonzales of Texas, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Guest, 

Mr. Zinke, Mr. Clyde, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Ciscomani, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Alford, 

Mr. LaLota, Ms. Maloy, Mr. Strong, Mr. Moore of West Virginia. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Latta, 

Mr. Griffith, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 

Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
2 

•HRES 21 EH 

Balderson, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Pfluger, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mrs. 

Miller-Meeks, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. James, Mr. 

Bentz, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Fry, Ms. Lee of Florida, Mr. 

Langworthy, Mr. Kean, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Evans of Colorado, 

Mr. Goldman of Texas, Mrs. Fedorchak. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Lucas, Mr. 

Sessions, Mr. Huizenga, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Barr, Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Davidson, 

Mr. Rose, Mr. Steil, Mr. Timmons, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Norman, Mr. Meuser, Mrs. Kim, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Garbarino, 

Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Flood, Mr. Lawler, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. 

Ogles, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mrs. McClain, Ms. Salazar, Mr. 

Downing, Mr. Haridopolos, Mr. Moore of North Carolina. 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 

Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Schweikert, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Estes, Mr. 

Smucker, Mr. Hern of Oklahoma, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Steube, 

Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Moore of Utah, Ms. Van 

Duyne, Mr. Feenstra, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Carey, Mr. 

Yakym, Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Moran. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### William A. Vannoy, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion Filed January 4, 1928.

*Pine, Cheatham*c& *Kehoe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred E. Davis,*Attorney General; H. E. Carter, Assistant, for State.

Per Curiam.

The information in this case attempted to charge an offense under Sec. 5438, Revised General Statutes. It does not set out the “printed paper containing obscene prints, figures and pictures,” by any certain description, or give any excuse for failure to do so. This ease must be reversed upon the authority of the case of Reyes v. The State, 34 Fla. 181, 15 So. 875, cited with approval in the la$f paragraph of the opinion in the case of Smith v. Chase, 91 Fla. 1044, 109 So. 94. The indictment in this case is practically identical in its language with the indict*1176ment held bad, on motion in arrest of judgment, in the case of Reyes v. The State, above cited.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion.