alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019016EN.01001901.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

(Case C-432/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Part-time workers - Retirement pension - Calculation of the amount of the pension - Account taken of years of service completed before expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 97/81/EC - Immediate application to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old law))

(2019/C 16/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Dermod Patrick O’Brien

Respondent: Ministry of Justice, formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81, as amended by Directive 98/23, must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00039

- CR

ROBERT BRICE DAUGHERTY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25958

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Brice Daugherty appeals his li fe sentence for delivery of methamphetamine in an

amount of four or more grams

, but less than 200 grams. 1 Daugherty’s sole point of error claims

he received ineffective assistance of counsel whe n his trial attorney failed to inform him about a

plea offer made by the State. We overrule Daugherty’s point of error and affirm the trial court’s

sentence.

Daugherty pled guilty to three indictments in one proceeding . T he trial court heard

evidence on all three cases and sentenced Daughert y to life imprisonment i n each case, with the

sentences ordered to run concurrently. In a single brief

, Daugherty claims his first of two trial

attorneys was ineffective by fail ing to tell him of a plea bargain offer covering all three indictments

under w hich the State would recommend a sentence of forty years. We addressed the merits of

that claim in our opinion in cause number 06

- 15

- 00038

- CR, issued contemporaneously with this

opinion . For the reasons detailed in that opinion, we likewise overrule Daug herty’s point of error

.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: August 5, 2015

Date Decided: September 3 , 2015

Do Not Publish

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.112(d) (West 2010).
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 215 

To amend title V of the Social Security Act to require assurances that 

certain family planning service projects and programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of adoption centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2025 

Mr. WITTMAN (for himself, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. HIGGINS

of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title V of the Social Security Act to require 

assurances that certain family planning service projects 

and programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of adoption centers. 

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 ‘‘Adoption Information 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 215 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION IN FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES OF 

2 PAMPHLETS CONTAINING ADOPTION CENTER 

3 CONTACT INFORMATION. 

4 Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 

5 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 514. LIMITATION. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro8 vision of this title, a grant may be made or contract en9 tered into under section 501 for a family planning service 

10 project or program only upon assurances satisfactory to 

11 the Secretary that the project or program will— 

12 ‘‘(1) provide to each person to whom the med13 ical professional provides family planning medical 

14 services, at the time the person inquires about med15 ical or abortion services, a pamphlet that contains— 

16 ‘‘(A) a comprehensive list of the adoption 

17 centers located in the region (as determined by 

18 the Secretary) where the adoption services are 

19 provided; and 

20 ‘‘(B) the address and telephone number of 

21 each such center; and 

22 ‘‘(2) provide each such person an opportunity to 

23 read the pamphlet. 

24 ‘‘(b) PAMPHLETS.—The Secretary shall prepare, an25 nually update, and distribute to each project or program 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 215 IH

1 referred to in subsection (a) pamphlets described in such 

2 subsection. 

3 ‘‘(c) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS.—No funds may be 

4 used to carry out this section, except funds that are appro5 priated to carry out this title.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 OF 2002*  In connection with the Quarterly Report of JMG Exploration, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Joseph W. Skeehan, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: July 24­­, 2009  /S/ Joseph W. SkeehanName:Joseph W. SkeehanTitle:Chief Executive and Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JMG Exploration, Inc.   and will be retained by JMG Exploration, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 294 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 with respect to the dairy margin 

coverage program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2025 

Mr. LANGWORTHY (for himself, Mr. VAN ORDEN, and Mr. COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 with respect to 

the dairy margin coverage program, 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 ‘‘Dairy Farm Resiliency 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DAIRY MARGIN COVERAGE PROGRAM. 

7 (a) PRODUCTION HISTORY.—Section 1405(a)(1) of 

8 the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9055(a)(1)) is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘during any one of the 2011, 2012, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 294 IH

1 or 2013 calendar years’’ and inserting ‘‘in the most recent 

2 three-year history, as calculated once every five years’’. 

3 (b) PREMIUMS FOR DAIRY MARGINS.— 

4 (1) TIER I.—Section 1407(b) of the Agricul5 tural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9057(b)) is amended— 

6 (A) in the heading, by striking 

7 ‘‘5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000’’; and 

8 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking 

9 ‘‘5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000’’. 

10 (2) TIER II.—Section 1407(c) of the Agricul11 tural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9057(c)) is amended— 

12 (A) in the heading, by striking 

13 ‘‘5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000’’; and 

14 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking 

15 ‘‘5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘6,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2016364EN.01001902.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/19

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Cham v Council

(Case T-413/16)

(2016/C 364/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cham Holding (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-410/16, Makhlouf v Council.

---
Exhibit 10.3
 Execution Version
 INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT
 Agreement Company Investor
 Purchase Agreement
   DEFINITIONS
 Definitions.
 2004 Equity Award Plan
 Adelson Holders




---



##### 



Page 2 of 12  Advanced Amounts Section 2.4(c)
 Agreement
 Company
 Exchange Rights Holder Section 2.2(a)
 Indemnified Party Section 2.4(a)
 Indenture
 Investor
 New Securities Section 2.1(a)
 Notes 1 2
 Preemptive Rights Notice Section
2.1(a)
 Pro Rata Allotment Section 2.1(c)
 Proceeding Section 2.4(a)
 Purchase Agreement




---



##### 



Page 3 of 12 Qualified Financing
 Qualified Financing Notice Section
2.2(a)
 Qualified Financing Securities Section
2.2(a)
 Rights Holders Rights Holder
 AGREEMENTS
 Preemptive Rights.
 Section 2.1 New
Securities Preemptive Rights Notice




---



##### 



Page 4 of 12   Section 2.1(c) Pro Rata
Allotment
  Qualified Financing
 Section 2.3 Qualified Financing Securities Qualified Financing Notice Exchange Rights Holders




---



##### 



Page 5 of 12   Section 2.3
 Section 2.3 Qualified
Financing Share
  Indemnification
 Indemnified Party




---



##### 



Page 6 of 12 Proceeding
  Advanced Amounts
 Section 2.4 Section 2.4




---



##### 



Page 7 of 12 Section 2.4
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Notices Section 2.2 Section 2.3 provided however




---



##### 



Page 8 of 12 th
 Section 3.1
 Successors and Assigns
 Amendment and Waiver
   Counterparts
 Headings
 GOVERNING LAW




---



##### 



Page 9 of 12  Specific Performance
 Severability
 Entire Agreement; Survival




---



##### 



Page 10 of 12 Further Assurances
  /s/ Dr. Miriam AdelsonDr. Miriam Adelson




---



##### 



Page 11 of 12  LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.By:
    /s/ William P. WeidnerName:
    William P. WeidnerTitle:
    President, Chief Operating Officer
and Secretary




---



##### 



Page 12 of 12 Schedule A
 Name of Investor
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                    |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:       February 17, 2009 |   | /s/       Charles B. Crowell  |   |
|                               |   | Charles      B. Crowell                 |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Executive Officer            |   |
|                               |   |                                    |   |

----

----
# C_2018352EN.01001401.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-485/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(9) - Concept of ‘business premises’ - Criteria - Sales contract concluded on a stand run by a trader at a trade fair))

(2018/C 352/18)

Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

Defendant: Unimatic Vertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(9) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, run by a trader at a trade fair, at which he carries out his activity for a few days each year, constitutes ‘business premises’ within the meaning of that provision if, in the light of all the factual circumstances surrounding that activity, in particular the appearance of the stand and the information relayed on the premises of the fair itself, a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer could reasonably assume that the trader is carrying out his activity there and will solicit him in order to conclude a contract, which is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 12.2 CERTIFICATION  I, Christophe Hidalgo, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F of COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUIÇÃO; 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. Date: January 30, 2015 By:/s/ Christophe HidalgoName: Christophe HidalgoTitle: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017038EN.01004601.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/46

---

Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)

(Case T-859/16)

(2017/C 038/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad Anónima Damm (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG (Au-Hallertau, Germany)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘EISKELLER’ –EU trade mark application No 12 204 426

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 2428/2015-5

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 Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

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.

---
Michael Roy BAXTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1618

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NO. 12-14-00089-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE 

OF GRACE KIMBERLEE ADAMS

AND BOBBY REID ADAMS

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 354TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. In her motion, Appellant states that 

she no longer wishes to appeal the decision of the lower court or overturn it. Because Appellant 

has met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is 

granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

Opinion delivered July 31, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2014

NO. 12-14-00089-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

GRACE KIMBERLEE ADAMS AND BOBBY REID ADAMS

Appeal from the 354th District Court 

of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 9555)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that this appeal be dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the 

court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DARRIN D. ANTHONY, ID # 766599, )

Petitioner, )

 )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2019-P

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED this 16 day of July, 2007. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02019-P Document 29 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 184
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 16 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 16

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 extending the right to vote to citizens sixteen years of age or older.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2025

  Ms. Meng (for herself, Mr. Casten, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Pressley, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Mr. Mullin, and Ms. Tlaib) 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 
 extending the right to vote to citizens sixteen years of age or older.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The twenty-sixth article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 
sixteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged 
by the United States or by any State on account of age.
    ``Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```