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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 997 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.997

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract 
    between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``East Bench Irrigation District Water 
Contract Extension Act''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT.
    The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract for water 
services between the United States and the East Bench Irrigation 
District, numbered 14-06-600-3593, until the earlier of--
        (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on which the 
    contract would have expired if this Act had not been enacted; or
        (2) the date on which a new long-term contract is executed by 
    the parties to the contract.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 846 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.846

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 Lafayette Street 
 in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the Christopher S. Bond United States 
                               Courthouse.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.
    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 80 
Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# C_2020087EN.01000301.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gera (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2019 — Toropet Ltd. v Landkreis Greiz

(Case C-836/19)

(2020/C 87/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Gera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Toropet Ltd.

Defendant: Landkreis Greiz

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 10(a) of Regulation No 1069/2009 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the original classification as Category 3 material is lost if fitness for human consumption no longer applies due to decomposition and spoilage? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 10(a) of Regulation No 1069/2009 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the original classification as Category 3 material is lost if fitness for human consumption no longer applies due to decomposition and spoilage?

| 2. | Is Article 10(f) of Regulation No 1069/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that the original classification as Category 3 material for products of animal origin, or foodstuffs containing products of animal origin, is lost if a risk to public or animal health arises from the material as a result of later decomposition or spoilage processes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 10(f) of Regulation No 1069/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that the original classification as Category 3 material for products of animal origin, or foodstuffs containing products of animal origin, is lost if a risk to public or animal health arises from the material as a result of later decomposition or spoilage processes?

| 3. | Is the provision of Article 9(d) of Regulation No 1069/2009 to be interpreted restrictively as meaning that material mixed with foreign bodies such as sawdust is only to be categorised as Category 2 material when the material is to be processed and is destined for feeding purposes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the provision of Article 9(d) of Regulation No 1069/2009 to be interpreted restrictively as meaning that material mixed with foreign bodies such as sawdust is only to be categorised as Category 2 material when the material is to be processed and is destined for feeding purposes?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBAENES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge: Section 13(a)



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of Section 15 (d) of the Securities and 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following
persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                    |  |  |              |             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  | ------------ | ------------
|Signatures             |  |  |  | Title                                                              |  |  |              | Date        
|                       |  |  |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Robert E. Maxwell  |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board & Director                                   |  |  |              | May 29, 2007
|Robert E. Maxwell      |  |  |  |                                                                    |  |  |              |             
|                       |  |  |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Daniel L. Hefner   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director                      |  |  |              |             
|Daniel L. Hefner       |  |  |  |                                                                    |  |  | May 29, 2007
|                       |  |  |  |                                                                   
|/s/ Frank D. Puissegur |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director |  |  |              |             
|Frank D. Puissegur     |  |  |  |                                                                    |  |  | May 29, 2007
#### Jeevan KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74135.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 14, 2011.

Hardeep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jeevan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 *347U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding where Ku-mar provided inconsistent testimony regarding whether he had contact with police during the 12-month period between June 1999 and June 2000. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir.2006). Additionally, the adverse credibility finding is supported by the IJ’s negative assessment of Kumar’s demeanor due to non-responsive answers and long pauses in his testimony. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (“special deference” given to credibility determinations that are based on demeanor). In the absence of credible testimony, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Kumar’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Am. No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Transaction and Monitoring Fee Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 TRANSACTION AND MONITORING FEE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1, dated December 1, 2009 (the “Amendment”), to the Amended and Restated Transaction and Monitoring Fee Agreement, dated as of March 7, 2006 (as the same
may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Monitoring Agreement”), between Team Health Holdings, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) and successor-in-interest
to Ensemble Acquisition LLC, and Blackstone Management Partners IV L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“BMP”). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the
Monitoring Agreement. 
 W I T N E S S E T H : 

WHEREAS, the Company and BMP are parties to the Monitoring Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the Company and BMP have previously amended and restated the Monitoring Agreement pursuant to which, among other things, the
monitoring fee was decreased from $5 million to $3.5 million annually; and 
 WHEREAS, in partial recognition of
Blackstone’s commitment to pay a pro rata portion of any Lump Sum Payment on behalf of the Company to the management holders in consideration for services they will continue to provide the Company in connection with a public offering, the
Company and BMP desire to amend the terms of the Monitoring Agreement as more fully set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises and agreements made herein and in the Monitoring Agreement and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Monitoring Agreement shall be amended as follows: 
 1. The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Monitoring Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the number “$3,500,000” and
replacing it with “$4,500,000”. 
 2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the provisions of the Monitoring Agreement
are and shall continue to be in full force and effect and are hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. 
 3. Whenever this Agreement (or similar term) is referred to in the Monitoring Agreement or in any other agreements, documents or instruments, any such reference shall be deemed to be the Monitoring
Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 
 4. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of
the State of Delaware. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused
this to be executed as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Heidi S. Allen

	Name:	 	Heidi S. Allen
	Title:	 	SVP & General Counsel
	
	BLACKSTONE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS IV L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Neil Simpkins

	Name:	 	Neil Simpkins
	Title:	 	Senior Managing Director
# C_2019148EN.01001401.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2019 — X-GmbH v Z Tax Office

(Case C-48/19)

(2019/C 148/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X-GmbH

Defendant: Z Tax Office

Questions referred

| 1. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person advises insured persons on various topics relating to healthcare and medical conditions by telephone on behalf of health insurance funds, does this constitute an activity that falls within the scope of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person advises insured persons on various topics relating to healthcare and medical conditions by telephone on behalf of health insurance funds, does this constitute an activity that falls within the scope of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

| 2. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient, in relation to the services referred to in question 1 and in respect of turnover in the context of ‘patient support programmes’, for the required evidence of professional qualifications if the consultations over the telephone are conducted by ‘health coaches’ (medical assistants, nurses) and a doctor is consulted in approximately one third of the cases? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is it sufficient, in relation to the services referred to in question 1 and in respect of turnover in the context of ‘patient support programmes’, for the required evidence of professional qualifications if the consultations over the telephone are conducted by ‘health coaches’ (medical assistants, nurses) and a doctor is consulted in approximately one third of the cases?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Endocrinology and Reproduction.                    

*Date:*                         August 5, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dianne Hardy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6175, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1154,                         *dianne.hardy@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 12, 2021.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-15119 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 06, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 06, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A0551. MANCHILOT GUADIE v. DEBRE BISRAT ST. GABRIEL ETHIOPIAN

ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
# C_2019399EN.01003301.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 18 September 2019 — Ryanair Ltd v PJ

(Case C-687/19)

(2019/C 399/38)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: PJ

Question referred

Must Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, (1) and therefore Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, be interpreted as precluding the payment of compensation for a psychological injury, such as post-traumatic stress, on the basis of those provisions?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2.

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Forms S-8, No. 333-124866) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Founders Stock Option Plan and the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 15, 2006,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Syniverse Holdings, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.



/S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPCertified Public Accountant


Tampa, Florida

March 23, 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NICHOLAS PAUL RAITHEL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3892

[August 2, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562015CF332AXXX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE and FORST, JJ., and ARTAU, EDWARD L., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[DESCRIPTION] ART. 5 FDS FOR 2ND QUARTER 10-Q
<ARTICLE>   5

                               Exhibit 27.0

                          Financial Data Schedule


This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of New Jersey Mining Company for the six months ending
June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

<PERIOD TYPE>             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD START>            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD END>              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                          7,054
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                7,054
<PP&E>                        280,430
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                409,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,964
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                      647,836
<OTHER-SE>                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  409,388
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              (15,516)
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (16,981)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (16,981)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                  (16,981)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.00)




</TABLE>