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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2143 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2143

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Anthra[2,1,9-mna]naphth[2,3-
     h]acridine-5,10,15(16H)-trione,3-[(9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-1-
                          anthracenyl)amino]-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

  Mr. Berry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Anthra[2,1,9-mna]naphth[2,3-
     h]acridine-5,10,15(16H)-trione,3-[(9,10-dihydro-9,10-dioxo-1-
                          anthracenyl)amino]-.

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

SECTION 1. ANTHRA[2,1,9-MNA]NAPHTH[2,3-H]ACRIDINE-5,10,15(16H)-
              TRIONE,3-[(9,10-DIHYDRO-9,10-DIOXO-1-ANTHRACENYL)AMINO]-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.71       Anthra[2,1,9-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         mna]naphth[2,3-                                                    31/2008
                         h]acridine-
                         5,10,15(16H)-
                         trione,3-[(9,10-
                         dihydro-9,10-
                         dioxo-1-
                         anthracenyl)amino
                         ]- (CAS No. 4395-
                         53-3) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3204.15.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00004-CR

MONTY MORGAN BRITTAIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21,725-2012

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Monty Morgan Brittain, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion 

was signed by both Brittain and his counsel in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: February 19, 2014

Date Decided: February 20, 2014

Do Not Publish
#### Jose De Jesus SILVA GONZALEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72790.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2006.*

Decided May 3, 2006.

Jose De Jesus Silva Gonzalez, Altadena, CA, pro se.

Raquel Flores De Silva, Altadena, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jose De Jesus Silva Gonalez and Raquel Flores De Silva, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decisions of the Board *673of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the results of an immigration judge’s denial of them application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir .2005).

Petitioners’ equal protection challenge to the nationality-based distinctions in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), which permits aliens from certain countries to apply for special rule cancellation of removal in accordance with the more lenient terms of pre-IIRIRA1 suspension-of-deportation law, lacks merit. *See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting equal protection challenge to NACARA’s favorable treatment of aliens from certain war-ravaged countries).

Petitioners’ contention that they are entitled to relief because their removal would violate the substantive due process rights of their United States citizen children is foreclosed. *See Urbano De Malaluan v. INS,*577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978) (observing that the argument that “the deportation order would amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the constitutional rights of the child ... has been authoritatively rejected in numerous cases.”) (citations omitted).

Petitioners’ contentions regarding the summary nature of the Board’s decision, which was issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), are unavailing. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the Board’s streamlining procedure comports with due process).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C., Title III, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996).
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N THE I NTEREST OF J.M.M., A M IN O R C H ILD § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 50 -C V

Appea l from the 112th J udicial District Court of Pe c os County , T e xas (TC# P-10,635-112-CV)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This appea l is before the Court on its own moti on for de termination whethe r this appea l should be dismissed for want of prosec ution. Finding that Appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of tim e, we dismiss the appe al. Appellant’s br ief wa s due to be filed on Ma y 21, 2008, but Appellant has not filed the brief or a motion for extension of time. On J une 20, 2008, the c lerk of this Court notified the parties of the Court’s intent to dismi ss for wa nt of prosec ution if, within t en day s of the notice, no party responde d showingg rounds to continue the a ppeal. We have not rec eived a response . This Court possesses the authority to dismi ss an appe al for w ant of prose cution when Appellant has f

ailed to his brief in the time prosc ribed, a nd g ives no rea sonable e x planation for such fa ilure. T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .8 (a)( 1) ; El izo nd o v . Ci ty of S an An ton io , 975 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no wr it). We have g iven notice of our intent to do so, reque sted a response if a re asonable basis for f ailure to file the brief or

statement of f

acts e x ists, and have
rec ieved none . We see no purpose that would be ser ved by decliningto dismi ss this appeal at-2-

this stage in the proce eding s. There fore , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a) (1) a nd 42.3(c)
. September 18, 2008 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
[No. 37705-1-I.

Division One.

September 8, 1997.]

#### Geoffrey D. Greiner, *Appellant,*v. Robert Allquist, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 94-2-00955-1, Michael E. Rickert, J., and Susan K. Cook, J. Pro Tern., entered October 16, 1995 and February 26, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EX-10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 

Term Loan Note 
  

			
	 U.S. $2,189,182.70
	 	September 17, 2013

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, RainDance Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to Capital Royalty Partners II L.P. or its assigns (the “Lender”) at the Lender’s principal office in 1000 Main Street, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77002, in
immediately available funds, the aggregate principal sum set forth above, or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Loans made by the Lender pursuant to Section 2.01 of the Term Loan Agreement,
dated as of September 17, 2013 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified, renewed, refinanced or replaced, the “Loan Agreement”), among Borrower, the Lender, the other lenders party thereto and the
Subsidiary Guarantors party thereto, on the date or dates specified in the Loan Agreement, together with interest on the principal amount of such Loans from time to time outstanding thereunder at the rates, and payable in the manner and on the
dates, specified in the Loan Agreement.  
 This Note is a Note issued pursuant to the terms of Section 2.04 of
the Loan Agreement, and this Note and the holder hereof are entitled to all the benefits and security provided for thereby or referred to therein, to which Loan Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement thereof. All defined terms used in
this Note, except terms otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meaning as in the Loan Agreement. 
 THIS NOTE AND THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INCLUDING SECTION 5-1401 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS
THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 
 FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 1272, 1273 AND 1275 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, THIS NOTE IS BEING ISSUED WITH ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT; PLEASE CONTACT DAVID KEENE, TITLE: DIRECTOR, FINANCE & CORPORATE CONTROLLER, ADDRESS: 749 MIDDLESEX
TURNPIKE, BILLERICA, MA 01821, TELEPHONE: (978) 495-3353, TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING THE ISSUE PRICE, THE AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT AND THE YIELD TO MATURITY. 

Borrower hereby waives demand, presentment, protest or notice of any kind hereunder, other than notices provided for in the Loan Documents.
The non-exercise by the holder hereof of any of its rights hereunder in any particular instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in such particular or any subsequent instance. 

THIS NOTE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT. 

 

			
	RAINDANCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ S. Roopom Banerjee

	Name:	 	S. Roopom Banerjee
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 32993, June 23, 2021.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 

Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: June 24, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-13813 Filed 6-24-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6904

CARL GRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BEDFORD COUNTY JAIL DOCTOR; J. WATSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-603-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Phillip

Richard Lingafelt, GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDMANN & DARBY, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Gray v. Bedford County Jail Doctor, No. CA-94-603-R (W.D.

Va. June 5, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# L_2009097EN.01002701.xml

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 97/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 97/27

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 of 17 March 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 81 of 20 March 2008
  )

On page 2, recital 13, first indent of point (b), on page 6, recital 54, first column, fifth entry of the table, on page 18, recital 140, first column, fifth entry of the table, and on page 19, Article 1(2), column ‘Company’, fifth entry of the table:

for:

‘Nu Air (Shanghai) Compressor and Tools Co., Ltd ...’,

read:

‘Nu Air (Shanghai) Compressors and Tools Co., Ltd ...’.

---
# L_2008173EN.01003101.xml

| 3.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/31

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 554/2008 of 17 June 2008 concerning the authorisation of 6-phytase (Quantum Phytase) as a feed additive

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 158 of 18 June 2008
  )

On page 16, Annex, Table, column ‘Name of the holder of authorisation’:

for:

‘AB Enzyme GmbH’,

read:

‘AB Enzymes GmbH’.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00025-TLS-SLC

)

DASHAWN BILLINGSLEY )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on July 20, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant

be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and Recommendation

be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Judge Theresa

L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation

are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 20th day of July 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
ANNUAL REPORT 2014 3

This Annual Report was produced by talented and dedicated 

staff. To these individuals, we would like to offer our sincere 

thanks and appreciation. Special recognition is given to the 

following for their contributions:

♦ Jannie F. Eaddy 

♦ Brian D. Aaron

♦ Barbara A. Glasby

♦ Latoja S. Anderson

♦ Financial Reporting Section

♦ Division and Offices’ Points-of-Contact

2014

Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Application Technology Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Departments
                        Agricultural Engineering
                                    Entomology
                                    Horticulture
                                    Plant Pathology
                                    IR-4 programSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Plant Pathologyheadline bar Home


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2062

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Randall D. Shughart 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2005

Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. DENT, and Mr. 

WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, 

as the ‘‘Randall D. Shughart Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. RANDALL D. SHUGHART POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 57 West Street in Newville, 

7 Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ran8 dall D. Shughart Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 2062 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Randall D. Shughart 

5 Post Office Building’’.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140523 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140523 

 COA: 285959 

Charlevoix CC: 07-036010-FC 

CHARLES CURTIS MERRIMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[No. 20441-0-II.

Division Two.

August 8, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Cheryl Thompson, *Petitioner,*and Jeffrey Thompson, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 94-3-00223-8, H. John Hall, J., entered February 2, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.