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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 87 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 87

  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              EMIL KAPAUN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE KOREAN WAR.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time 
limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 
who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized and 
requested to award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 3741 
of such title to Emil Kapaun for the acts of valor during the Korean 
War described in subsection (b).
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of then Captain Emil Kapaun as a member 
of the 8th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of Usan on November 1 and 
2, 1950, and while a prisoner of war until his death on May 23, 1951, 
during the Korean War.
                                 <all>
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 85 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the maximum 

rate of tax on the income of corporations to 20 percent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. JOHANNS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the maximum rate of tax on the income of corporations 

to 20 percent. 

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 ‘‘Restoring America’s 

5 Competitiveness in Enterprise (RACE) Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAX RATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 11 of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol9 lows: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 85 IS

1 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX.—The amount of tax imposed 

2 by subsection (a) shall be the sum of— 

3 ‘‘(1) 15 percent of so much of the taxable in4 come as does not exceed $50,000, and 

5 ‘‘(2) 20 percent of so much of the taxable in6 come as exceeds $50,000.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Law Office ofBethWatkins

926 Chulie Drive

San Antonio, Texas 78216

210.225.6666- PHONE

210.225.2300-Fax

www.WatkinsAppeals.com

Mr. Christopher A. Prine

Clerk ofthe Court

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

301 Fannin Street, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

July 24,2015

Beth WATKiNSt

Beth.Watkins@Watkinsappeals.com

Shannon K. Dunn

Shannon.Dunn@Watkinsappeals.com

FILED IN

14th COURT OF APPEALS

JUL 27 2015

CHRIS lUKMfcfi A. PHINE

CLERK

re: Cause No. 14-15-00517-DV, Rotenco, S.A. De C V. v. Oscar Pulido Individually and

d/b/a International Industrial Suppliers Co., Surtind, Inc. andSurtind Imp. &Exp.,

S.A. De C. V.

Dear Mr. Prine:

My office represents Appellant Rotenco, S.A. De C.V. in the above entitled and numbered

cause. I ask that you please prepare a CD containing a copy ofthe appellate record inthis cause and

send it to me via first-class mail in the enclosed self-addressed, pre-paid CD mailer.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if 1can be of any further assistance.

encl.

t Board Certified- CivilAppellateLaw,Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Sincerely,

Shannon K. Dunn
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Michael McKINNON, Appellant.

Nos. 07-2290, 07-2523.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 31, 2008.

Filed: Dec. 4, 2008.

Theodore B. Smith, III, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.

R. Damien Schorr, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.

BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*619OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

This consolidated appeal arises from the dismissal of three pro se motions filed by McKinnon. The first two motions are the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2290, and the third is the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2523. McKinnon filed these pro se motions in the District Court while his direct appeal at case number 05-5314 was pending before us. The District Court dismissed the three motions in these two cases because it lacked jurisdiction. The filing of a notice of appeal removes a case from the District Court and places it under our jurisdiction. The District Court was correct. Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction, the dismissal was correct and typically would be affirmed. Because, however, the matter is before us in McKinnon’s other appeal, we will simply dismiss these two.
No. PD -1631-14 & PD-1632-14



### I N 

### T HE 

## Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin

__________ 

# JIMMIE JOHNSON, Appellant

v. 

# T HE 

# S TATE OF 

# T EXAS

Appellee

_________ Cause number s 1346765 & 1366083 In the 338 th 

### Judicial District Court Of Harris County, Texas

Cause numbers 01-13-01056-CR & 01- 13 -01057- CR 

### In the Court of Appeals for the First Judicial District



### _________ 

# Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to file Petition for Discretionary Review

__________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

JIMMIE JOHNSON, the appellant, under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1 & 10.5(b), moves

for an extension of time within which to file his petition for discretionary review. In

support of his motion, the appellant submits the following:

(A) The appellant’s petition for discretionary review is due on December 1, 2014. PD-1631-14 & PD-1632-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 3/4/2015 2:55:50 PM Accepted 3/6/2015 2:16:17 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK2

(B) The appellant seeks an extension of time until today to file the appellant’s petition for discretionary review

. (C) The appellant relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need for an extension: Due to an unexpected hospitalization, the undersigned was unable to complete the appellant’s petition by and requests an additional extension of time to file the petition that accompanies this motion

.
(D) One previous motion requesting an extension of time t o file the appell ant’s petition for discretionary review ha s been requested or granted.

WHEREFORE, the appellant prays that this Court will grant the requested

extension

. Respectfully submitted,



### __ /s/

__ Kelly Smith

___________ K ELLY A NN S MITH



### C ERTIFICATE OF 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### & S ERVICE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, this certifies that this document contains 290

words and a copy of the foregoing was electronically served on the State of Texas

.



### __ /s/

__ Kelly Smith

______

_____ K ELLY A NN S MITH T exas Bar No. 00797867

P.O. Box 10751 Houston, TX 77 206 281

- 734

- 0668 Kelly.A.Smith.06@gmail.com

Counsel for the appellant
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00258

- CR

Michael John Covarrubias

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Ta rrant County (1226932D )

September 25 , 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s jud gment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
# C_2020077EN.01002501.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/25

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by FV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 in Case T-153/17, FV v Council

(Case C-877/19 P)

(2020/C 77/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-153/17); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-153/17);

| — | consequently, grant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the 2014 and 2015 staff reports adopted definitively on 5 December 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the 2014 and 2015 staff reports adopted definitively on 5 December 2016;

| — | order the respondent to pay the entire costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the entire costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal dismissed the action for the annulment of the 2014 and 2015 staff reports.

In the appellant’s ground of appeal, he claims, first, that the General Court infringed the duty to review and the obligation to state reasons and distorted the file and, second, that it infringed the Guide to staff reports, the obligation to state reasons and the duty to care for staff, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

The appellant claims that the General Court manifestly erred in its assessment and distorted the facts in taking the view that his allegedly inappropriate conduct was the only reason why the administration had granted him a passable assessment for sense of responsibility, despite the fact that that section is defined by the Guide to staff reports as the individual’s engagement with his or her work and availability to complete his or her tasks in an active and constructive spirit.

In addition, the appellant claims that the General Court did not review the decrease in the appellant’s tasks correctly. His state of health and part-time work for medical reasons cannot justify reducing part of an official’s tasks, in particular, without his consent.

Furthermore, the appellant contests the General Court’s assessment of his change of office and position and of his conduct during the 2014 assessment period, claiming that they constitute distortion of the file.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal failed to criticise the failure to care for staff, in particular in respect of an official suffering from mental health problems, and to apply the third subparagraph Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


        CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification By
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), I, Christian Baha, President and Chief Executive Officer of Quadriga
Capital Management, Inc., the general partner of (the Fund, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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
                  operations of the Fund.


                                        By: /s/ Christian Baha
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Christian Baha
                                            President and Chief Executive
                                            Officer
                                            March 30, 2005


                                       43
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 operations of the Company.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ James
 Hennen                    
| | James Hennen                         
| | Senior Vice
 President of Finance and
| | Chief
 Financial Officer             
| | April 20,
 2010                      

---
# C_2022244EN.01002302.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-243/19) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor, originating in China - Definitive countervailing duties - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 - Determination of injury - Article 8(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 - Price undercutting calculation - Causal link)

(2022/C 244/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere and J. Redelbach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2019 L 16, p. 5) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 13210 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:11

- cr
- 00327

- CEH

- KRS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MICHAEL DENARD JONES, a.k.a. Bleek Jones, a.k.a. Michael D. Jones, a.k.a. Bleek, a.k.a. B, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (January 21, 2014) Case: 13-13210 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Before TJ OFLAT , HULL and MARCUS , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Michael Denard Jones in his

sentence

- reduction proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) , has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief pr epared pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent
review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and the denial of Jones’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED

.

Case: 13-13210 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 2 of 2
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
 Methods and Application of Food Composition Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About MAFCLSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center Methods and Application of Food Composition Laboratory MAFCL site pages





- MAFCL Home Page
- About MAFCL
- AMR
- FNR
- FDC
- Database Resources
- Historic Documents

***The ground beef calculator applies analytical data from Standard Reference Legacy (SR Legacy) for these nutrient profiles, which were developed using regression statistics.***  Beef Calculator is currently down for repair. Thank you for your patience. It will be back up as soon as possible.


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
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement    No. 333-114935    on    Form S-8    of our report dated December 21, 2007, March 11, 2008    as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 21    (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an    explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement, discussed in    Note 21) relating to the consolidated financial    statements and financial statement schedule of Alion Science and    Technology Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on    Form 10-K/A    of Alion Science and Technology Corporation for the year ended    September 30, 2007. /s/  DELOITTE &    TOUCHE LLP     McLean, Virginia    March 11, 2008
# C_2019295EN.01000801.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2019 — Syyttäjä and Tulli

(Case C-486/19)

(2019/C 295/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: A, B

Respondents: Syyttäjä and Tulli

Questions referred

| 1. | Is EU law to be interpreted as precluding a natural person acting on behalf of a company subject to tax who has failed to fulfil the obligations linked to the excise duty levied on ice-cream products from being sentenced to a criminal penalty for those failures if a tax exemption for activities of other undertakings relating to similar products were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is EU law to be interpreted as precluding a natural person acting on behalf of a company subject to tax who has failed to fulfil the obligations linked to the excise duty levied on ice-cream products from being sentenced to a criminal penalty for those failures if a tax exemption for activities of other undertakings relating to similar products were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, did a national tax system for excise duties on ice-cream products such as that in force in the period during which the offence was committed meet the criterion of selectivity as a characteristic of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, did a national tax system for excise duties on ice-cream products such as that in force in the period during which the offence was committed meet the criterion of selectivity as a characteristic of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?

---