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

###### Department of State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 568]

# ACTION:

Delegation of authority.

# SUMMARY:

The State Department is publishing a Delegation of Authority signed by the Secretary of State on December 20, 2024.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, signed the following “Delegation of Authority—Authorities of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights” on December 20, 2024. The State Department maintains the original document.

(Begin text.)

## Delegation of Authority—Authorities of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1(a)(4) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4)), I hereby delegate to Todd D. Robinson, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in or delegated to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights by any act, order, determination, delegation of authority, regulation, or executive order, now or hereafter issued.

The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management may exercise any function or authority delegated herein. This delegation of authority does not modify any other delegation of authority currently in effect.

                    This delegation will be effective on January 10, 2025, and will expire upon                           ( print page 3988)                        the entry upon duty of a confirmed Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights unless sooner revoked, and shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

(End text.)

Zachary A. Parker,

Director, Office of Organizational Policy, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2025-00679 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 240 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for the 

preemption of certain State overtime laws for agricultural employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself, Mr. LANGWORTHY, and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

for the preemption of certain State overtime laws for 

agricultural employees. 

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 ‘‘Protect Local Farms 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE OVERTIME LAWS 

7 FOR AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES. 

8 Section 18 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

9 (29 U.S.C. 218) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 240 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘No provision 

2 of this Act or of any order thereunder’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (c), no provi4 sion of this Act or of any order thereunder’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(c) The provisions of this Act shall preempt any 

7 State law that provides for a maximum workweek for em8 ployees employed in agriculture of less than 60 hours.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Louisiana v. James Daniel JOHNSON

NO. 2019-KK-0114

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Granted. The district court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress despite finding that the officers failed to articulate probable cause in their search warrant application to subpoena defendant's medical records. A search warrant application must contain within its four corners the facts establishing the existence of probable cause. *State v. Duncan* , 420 So.2d 1105 (La.1982). Louisiana Code of Evidence article 510 is not an exception to the warrant requirement; rather, it is an exception to the admissibility protections of that evidence after lawful seizure. The *293evidence in this matter was not lawfully seized; thus, Article 510 does not apply.

The trial court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress is therefore vacated, defendant's motion to suppress is granted, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

GUIDRY, J., would deny.

CLARK, J., would deny.

CRICHTON, J., would deny and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

I would deny the defendant's writ. In my view, the good faith exception is clearly applicable and the trial court did not abuse his "great discretion" in ruling on this motion to suppress. *See**State v. Coleman* , 14-0402, p.18 (La. 2/26/16), 188 So.3d 174, 192.
Timothy Kyle ABNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY P ROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2) , SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jose Martin Guzman

- Pl i ego, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023

- 000263

Appeal From Pickens County Perry H. Gravely, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024

- UP

- 334 Submitted September 1, 2024 – Filed October 2, 2024

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Jessica M

. Saxon, of Columbia
, and Jose Martin Guzman

- Pliego, pro se, both for Appellant

. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia
, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM : Dismissed after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.APPEAL DISMISSED. 1

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON , JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JackL. Wyszomierski, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Dated:November 14, 2006

| /s/ JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI                                       |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                     |
| Title: *Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
H. Res. 3 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2025. 

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a 

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready 

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to 

make. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Bishan A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2019187EN.01002301.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-702/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Public service distribution concessions - Early cessation of concessions at the end of a transitional period - Reimbursement by the incoming concessionaire to the outgoing concessionaire - Principle of legal certainty)

(2019/C 187/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Unareti SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per gli Affari Regionali, Autorità Garante per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico — Sede di Milano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Conferenza Stato Regioni ed Unificata — Ministero per gli affari regionali — Dipartimento per gli affari regionali e le autonomie, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni e Enti Locali

Operative part of the judgment

EU law on public service concessions, read in the light of the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which amends the basic criteria for the calculation of the reimbursement to which holders of natural gas distribution concessions award without be put out for tender on account of the early termination of those concessions in order to award them again after being put out for tender.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
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~ / \
Roger Allen CALHOUN v. STATE

CR-16-0915

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Case 3:04-cv-02728-B Document 13 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
SKTF First Amendment to 2001 SOP






FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO 

SKTF, INC. 

2001 STOCK OPTION PLAN 







This First Amendment to the SKTF, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan (the “Amendment”) is executed effective this 27th day of August, 2003. 




RECITALS 




WHEREAS, SKTF Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”) executed the SKTF, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) effective May 15, 2001; 




WHEREAS, the Plan provided for up to 600,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to be issued pursuant to the terms of the Plan; 




WHEREAS, Section 14(b) of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors may revise or amend the Plan at any time subject to the approval of the Company’s shareholders only to the extent required by applicable laws, regulations or rules including the rules of any applicable exchange; 




WHEREAS, the Company desires to execute this First Amendment to the Plan in order to increase the number of shares of common stock subject to the Plan to 1,000,000 shares, and to change the name of the Plan to the “Speedemissions Holding Company, Inc. Stock Option Plan.” 




WHEREAS, on July 15, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Company approved this Amendment to the Plan, and on August 27, 2003, the Shareholders of the Company approved this Amendment to the Plan. 




NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 




1.  The Plan shall be known as the “Speedemissions Holding Company, Inc. Stock Option Plan”. 




2.  Section 5(a) of the Plan is restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

“(a)    Basic Limitation 

Shares offered under the Plan shall be authorized but unissued Shares. Subject to Sections 5(b) and 9 of the Plan, the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued or transferred as common stock pursuant to an Award under the Plan shall not exceed 1,000,000 Shares. 





	 
	 	Page 1 of 2	 
	



	 



 

In any event, the number of Shares which are subject to Awards or other rights outstanding at any time under the Plan shall not exceed the number of Shares which then remain available for issuance under the Plan. The Company, during the term of the Plan, shall at all times reserve and keep available sufficient Shares to satisfy the requirements of the Plan.” 

 

As adopted by the Board of Directors on July 15, 2003, and approved by the Shareholders on August 27, 2003. 







	
 
	
SKTF Enterprises, Inc., 

	
 
	
a Florida corporation 

	
 
	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 
	
By: Richard A. Parlontieri 

	
 
	
Its: President and Secretary 






	
	 	Page 2 of 2
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 297 

To prohibit the availability of Federal funds to institutions of higher education 

that conduct painful biomedical research on dogs and cats. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the availability of Federal funds to institutions 

of higher education that conduct painful biomedical research on dogs and cats. 

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 ‘‘Higher Education 

5 Loses Payments for Painful Experiments, Tests and Stud6 ies Act’’ or the ‘‘HELP PETS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 297 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL 

2 FUNDS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDU3 CATION THAT CONDUCT PAINFUL RESEARCH 

4 USING DOGS AND CATS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date that is 180 

6 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, no Fed7 eral funds may be made available to any institution of 

8 higher education that conducts or funds, in whole or in 

9 part, painful research on dogs or cats. 

10 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

11 to— 

12 (1) clinical veterinary research; or 

13 (2) any physical exam, training program, or 

14 study relating to service animals or military animals. 

15 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 (1) CLINICAL VETERINARY RESEARCH.—The 

17 term ‘‘clinical veterinary research’’ means research 

18 on a dog or cat with a naturally occurring disease 

19 or injury that is conducted— 

20 (A) for the benefit of the dog or cat; and 

21 (B) with the intention of studying the ef22 fect of a procedure, device, or treatment pro23 tocol. 

24 (2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The 

25 term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 297 IH

1 meaning given the term in section 102 of the Higher 

2 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). 

3 (3) MILITARY ANIMAL.—The term ‘‘military 

4 animal’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

5 2583(i)(1) of title 10, United States Code. 

6 (4) PAINFUL RESEARCH.—The term ‘‘painful 

7 research’’ includes any research, biomedical training, 

8 experimentation, or biological testing classified in 

9 pain category D or E by the Department of Agri10 culture. 

11 (5) SERVICE ANIMAL.—The term ‘‘service ani12 mal’’ has the meaning given the term in section 37.3 

13 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2019255EN.01000602.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-689/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipment of waste - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure - Shipments within the European Union - Article 1(3)(b) - Exclusion from the regulation’s scope - Waste generated on board ships - Waste on board a ship following damage at sea)

(2019/C 255/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste must be interpreted as meaning that residues, in the form of scrap metal and of fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, attributable to damage occurring on board a ship at sea, must be regarded as waste generated on board ships, within the meaning of that provision, which is, therefore, excluded from that regulation’s scope until it is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000299 24-OCT-2014 09:07 AM
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11165

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80187-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ARMANDO ANTONIO CASTRO, 

a.k.a. Antonio,

a.k.a. Tony,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 14, 2015)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Armando Antonio Castro appeals pro se the denial of motion to reduce his 

sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Castro’s motion was based on Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

Castro pleaded guilty to three offenses involving the illegal possession of 

and dealing in firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2), 

924(a)(1)(D), three counts of distributing a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), and one count of carrying a firearm in relation to drug trafficking, 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district court grouped Castro’s offenses involving drug

distribution and possessing and distributing firearms, see U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a)–(c), 

and calculated his offense level based on the firearms offenses because they 

yielded a higher advisory guideline range, see id. § 2K2.1. With an adjusted 

offense level of 29 and a criminal history of I, Castro faced a sentence between 87 

to 108 months of imprisonment and a consecutive sentence of five years for 

carrying a firearm in relation to a trafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

The district court sentenced Castro to 156 months of imprisonment.

The district court did not err when it denied Castro’s motion to reduce.

Because Castro was sentenced under the guideline for firearm offenses, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1, not the drug quantity table, he was ineligible for a reduction of his 

sentence under Amendment 782. See id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); see also United States 

v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). Castro argues that he was entitled 

Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

to a reduction under the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but a 

district court cannot consider the sentencing factors unless it determines that a 

defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. The district court lacked authority to 

reduce Castro’s sentence.

We AFFIRM the denial of Castro’s motion to reduce his sentence.

Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.  350), the undersigned, Joseph Skeehan, Chief Financial Officer of JMG Exploration, Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the  filing  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  of the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report").  The undersigned certifies 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 6th day of August 2008.   JMG EXPLORATION, INC.  /s/Joseph Skeehan Name: Joseph Skeehan Title: Chief Financial Officer
Jude Bernardo LAHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.