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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.51
                                         Agreed to June 29, 2012        

                      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

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, June 
29, 2012, through Monday, July 2, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, July 9, 2012, 
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on 
any legislative day from Friday, June 29, 2012, through Friday, July 6, 
2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 
Monday, July 9, 2012, or until time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason M. Meden, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 914]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy III, J.), rendered April 12, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Niagara County Court for resentencing in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed *1495and convicting him of violating the terms and conditions of his probation. He was sentenced to a determinate term of incarceration of three years, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence, but we conclude that the sentence imposed is illegal and cannot stand despite the failure of either defendant or the People to raise the issue in County Court or on appeal (see *People v Davis, 37*AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 983 [2007]). Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree, a class E felony and, although he was convicted of rape in the second degree in 2007, there is no indication in the record that he was adjudicated a second felony offender. Defendant therefore faced an indeterminate term of incarceration ranging from a minimum of 1 to 3 years to a maximum of *V-k*to 4 years *{see*Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [e]; [3] [b]). However, the court erroneously imposed a sentence of a determinate term of three years. The certificate of conviction correctly reflects that defendant was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree but it also reflects the illegal sentence. We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



                CERTIFICATION 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 Minera Andes Inc. (the
"Corporation"), on Form 10-QSB for the six-month period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Allen V. Ambrose, President of the Corporation, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     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 Corporation.


                                            MINERA ANDES INC.


Date: August 13, 2004                       By:  /s/  Allen V. Ambrose
     ----------------                          -------------------------------
                                                      Allen V. Ambrose
                                                      President
# C_2020247EN.01000901.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — AL v Commission

(Case T-83/19) (1)

(Civil service - Special advisers - Appointment to the post of representative of the European Union in an international partnership body - Appointment of another representative of the European Union - Legitimate expectations - Right to be heard - Principle of good administration and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Liability)

(2020/C 247/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation of 19 December 2017 and of the decision of 12 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
# C_2019082EN.01006402.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/64

---

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

(Case T-21/19)

(2019/C 82/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reverse the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse the contested decision;

| — | reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

| — | award the costs to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Donna Messinger, Appellant, v Alfred Festa, Defendant, and Rochester Gas and Electric Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Town of Sterling, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Isseks, J.), dated June 25, 1984, which granted the motion of the defendant and third-party plaintiff Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation to dismiss her complaint as against it for failure to state a cause of action and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated August 8, 1984, which thereupon dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint as against the defendant and third-party plaintiff Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (hereinafter Rochester Gas).

Appeal from the order dated June 25, 1984 dismissed *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised, on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

*785Judgment affirmed.

The respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

On September 12, 1981, the plaintiff was severely and permanently injured when the Land Rover in which she was a passenger went over a cliff. At that time, she and the defendant driver, Alfred Festa, were riding in the vehicle on an ascending dirt road while sightseeing on a large undeveloped tract of land owned by Rochester Gas. In dismissing the plaintiffs complaint as against Rochester Gas, Special Term correctly applied the standard set forth in General Obligations Law § 9-103, which applies to the use of motorized vehicles for recreational purposes. "[W]hen a plaintiff is confronted with a defense based on section 9-103, discernment of his or her burden is relatively simple * * * [the] plaintiff must prove that the defendant willfully or maliciously failed to guard or to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. The defendant’s negligence, if any, is immaterial” *(Sega v State of New York,*60 NY2d 183, 192). The plaintiff herein has simply alleged that Rochester Gas, as landowner, was negligent in permitting the defendant Alfred Festa to drive his motor vehicle on a dangerous roadway. Given the application of the statute and the plaintiffs failure to allege a malicious or willful failure to guard or to warn against this allegedly dangerous condition, the complaint was correctly dismissed as against Rochester Gas for failure to state a cause of action. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
S. Con. Res. 43 Agreed to April 27, 2012

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 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Thursday, April 26, 2012, through Sunday, May 6, 2012, on a 

motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 

noon on Monday, May 7, 2012, or such other time on that day 

as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in 

the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly 

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

first; and that when the House adjourns on any legislative day 

through Friday, May 4, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to 

this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 7, 2012, or until 

the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 

of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the 

Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the 

Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place and 

time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest 

shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-11134 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GAMEZ-ORTEGA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-22

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Gamez-Ortega appeals his judgment of conviction and

sentence after pleading guilty to reentry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he was charged with

and pleaded guilty to § 1326(a), simple reentry, which is limited

to a maximum sentence of two years, but that he was sentenced as

if he had pleaded guilty to reentry after an aggravated felony, 
No. 95-11134

-2-

§ 1326(b)(2). His argument is foreclosed by this court's opinion

in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 889 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15629]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4566-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


Delaware; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4566-DR), dated October 2, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark K. 
O'Hanlon, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Timothy S. Pheil, as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-15629 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# C_2020019EN.01001101.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2019 — A v B, C

(Case C-738/19)

(2020/C 19/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendants: B, C

Question referred

How should Directive 93/13 (1) and, more specifically, the principle of cumulative effect contained therein, be interpreted when assessing whether the sum which a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations is required to pay in compensation (‘penalty clause’) is disproportionately high within the meaning of point 1(e) of the annex to that directive, in a case in which penalty clauses are associated with shortcomings of various kinds which, by their very nature, do not have to occur together, and indeed do not do so in the present case? Is it also relevant in that regard that, with regard to the shortcoming on the basis of which payment of the fine is sought, compensation in the form of the remittance of unfairly made profits is also sought?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
# C_2019328EN.01005801.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/58

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission

(Case T-280/19 R)

(Interim relief - State aid - Application for interim measures - No need to adopt the interim measures requested - Lack of jurisdiction - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 328/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Highgate Capital Management LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys and I. Van Damme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, A. Bouchagiar and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for, first, suspension of the operation of a Commission decision rejecting a complaint relating to allegedly unlawful State aid granted to Eurobank Ergasias SA through the sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria (SA.53105) and, secondly, the grant of other interim measures.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES R. HAMILTON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 49, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 9508006908

§

§

Submitted: March 26, 2015

 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices

O R D E R

This 21st day of May 2015, the Court has carefully considered appellant’s 

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal. We find it 

manifest that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. The appellant 

completed his sentences in 2002 and thus had no standing to file a motion for 

postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.

1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

 

1

See Baltazar v. State, 2015 WL 257334, *3 (Del. Jan. 20, 2015).
Exhibit 23.1

To The Board of Directors
Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.



                       Consent of Independent Accountants
                         Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.
                          Audited Financial Statements
                           December 31, 2004 and 2003


We consent to the  incorporation  in the Annual  Report of Tiens  Biotech  Group
(USA),  Inc on Form 10-K of our report dated  February 26, 2005 on our audits of
the financial  statements of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc. and Subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2004 and 2003,  and for the years then ended,  which our reports
are incorporated in the Form 10-K.



/s/ Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet
------------------------------------------
Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP


Walnut, California
March 30, 2005
# C_2019164EN.01006001.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/60

---

Action brought on 26 March 2019 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)

(Case T-180/19)

(2019/C 164/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bibita Group SHPK (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 3797 091-0001 (Beverage bottles)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 1070/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the contested Community design registered under No 3797 091-0001 invalid, on all the grounds set in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested Community design registered under No 3797 091-0001 invalid, on all the grounds set in the application;

| — | order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Third Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Third Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

| — | order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 6(1) and 25(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 6(1) and 25(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
Exhibit 32.1

Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc. ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant's annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

| |  |  |  | /s/JEFFREY L. SCHWARTZJEFFREY L. SCHWARTZChairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks