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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 28 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 28

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2011

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
 for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to 
  the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the 
 Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, in recognition of 
              their dedicated service during World War II.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO AWARD THE 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on November 2, 2011, to award the 
Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry 
Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence 
Service, United States Army, in recognition of their dedicated service 
during World War II.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate September 8, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:794

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:795

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:796

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:797

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:798

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:799

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:800

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:801

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:802

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:803

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:804

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:805

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:806

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:807

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:808

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:809

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:810

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:811

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:812

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:813

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:814

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:815

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:816

Case: 1:02-cv-02180 Document #: 92 Filed: 07/11/03 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:817
# C_2005057EN.01001201.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 January 2005

in Case C-32/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/58/EC - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

(2005/C 57/22)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-32/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U.Wölker and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 January 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001 amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relating to dangerous substances in implementation of Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data sheets), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001 amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relating to dangerous substances in implementation of Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data sheets), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.

1

---
# C_2021028EN.01003901.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (Sadia)

(Case T-309/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Sadia - Earlier national word mark SAIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Principle of sound administration - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 28/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand-Lieu, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance and M. Aïtelli, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1834/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tipiak and BRF Singapore Foods.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tipiak;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, David M. Wurzer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of CuraGen Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



Date: June 16, 2004



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David M. Wurzer                                                         
|David M. Wurzer                                                             
|Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer                           
|and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting
officer of the registrant)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 188 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 188

           Opposing State bailouts by the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2011

Mr. Kirk submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Opposing State bailouts by the Federal Government.

Whereas each State of the Union is a sovereign entity with a constitution and 
        authority to issue sovereign debt;
Whereas the legislature of each State of the Union has the authority to reduce 
        spending or raise taxes to pay the obligations to which the State has 
        committed itself;
Whereas the officials of each State of the Union have the legal obligation to 
        fully disclose the financial condition of the State to investors who 
        purchase the debt of such State;
Whereas Congress has rejected prior requests from State creditors for payment of 
        defaulted State debt; and
Whereas during the financial crisis in 1842, the Senate requested that the 
        Secretary of State report any negotiations with State creditors to 
        assume or guaranty State debts, to ensure that no promises of Federal 
        Government support were proffered: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the Federal Government should take no action to redeem, 
        assume, or guarantee State debt; and
            (2) the Secretary of the Treasury should report to Congress 
        negotiations to engage in actions that would result in an 
        outlay of Federal funds on behalf of creditors to a State.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022432EN.01001902.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-865/19) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Dumping margin - Determination of the normal value - Adjustments - Construction of the export price - Fair comparison - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting - Sales between related companies - Causal link - Calculation of the injury margin - Injury elimination - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Use of facts available)

(2022/C 432/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor and M. Hommé, lawyers)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Fertilizers Europe. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Fertilizers Europe.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
Exhibit 3.1(h)

ARTICLES SUPPLEMENTARY        TO THE        ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION        OF        IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies to the State
Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland that:

FIRST: Pursuant
to the authority granted to and vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the "Board of Directors") in accordance with
Article VI of the charter of the Corporation, including these Articles Supplementary (the "Charter"), the Board of Directors adopted resolutions reclassifying 1,200,000 shares (the "Shares") of
Series B 10.5% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, $.01 par value per share (the "Series B Preferred Stock"), as Preferred Stock (as defined in the Charter).

SECOND: The
Shares, as reclassified and redesignated, shall have the preferences, conversion and other rights, voting powers, restrictions,
limitations as to dividends or other distributions, qualifications, and terms and conditions of redemption for Preferred Stock as set forth in the Charter.

THIRD: The
Shares have been reclassified by the Board of Directors pursuant to Article VI of the Charter.

FOURTH: These
Articles Supplementary have been approved by the Board of Directors in the manner and by the vote required by law.

FIFTH: The
undersigned Secretary of the Corporation acknowledges these Articles Supplementary to be the corporate act of the Corporation and, as to
all matters or facts required to be verified under oath, the undersigned President acknowledges that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, these matters and facts are true in all
material respects and that this statement is made under the penalties for perjury.

[STATE
OF MARYLAND STAMP]

STATE OF MARYLAND

I hereby certify that this is a true and complete copy of the 3 page document on file in this office. DATED 5/31/01

STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION

/s/
Ann Custes, Custodian
This stamp replaces our previous certification system. Effective: 6/95

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles Supplementary to be signed in its name and on its behalf by its President and attested to by its Secretary on this
23 day of January, 2000.

|ATTEST:                                      |  |     |  |                                                    |  |       
|-------------------------------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | ------
|/s/ Ronald MorrisonRonald Morrison
Secretary |  | By: |  | /s/ William S. AshmoreWilliam S. Ashmore
President |  | (SEAL)

---



QuickLinks
# C_2019220EN.01002701.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/27

---

Appeal brought on 16 May 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 March 2019 in Case T-289/15 Hamas v Council

(Case C-386/19 P)

(2019/C 220/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 6 March 2019, Hamas v Council, T-289/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 6 March 2019, Hamas v Council, T-289/15;

| — | give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the appeal;

| — | order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First, in holding that the facts set out in paragraph 15 of Annex A and paragraph 17 of Annex B to the statement of reasons for the acts of March 2015 were invoked independently by the Council, the General Court distorted the evidence before it, substituted its own grounds for those of the author of the contested acts, failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for its decision and deprived the applicant of the ability to prepare its defence.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 by accepting that a decision of an administrative authority had been taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that provision, even though it had never been subject to judicial review.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/93, Article 296 TFEU, and the applicant’s rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection by holding that the British decision was a condemnation decision and that the Council was therefore obliged to defer as far as possible to the assessment conducted by the authority that adopted it.

Fourthly, in holding that Hamas and Hamas IDQ were a single entity, the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof, allowed the Council to alter its grounds in the course of the proceedings, took account of evidence without checking its veracity, breached the audi alteram partem rule in relation to the facts, distorted the evidence before it and breached the principle of the independence of proceedings.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

NOBLE MARTIN,

Plaintiff,
7 No, 02 CV 2199": , r
-Vs- , .
(Judge St. Eve) Nu ow
CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS Ye.
BRODERICK JONES and
COREY FLAGG and
CITY OF CHICAGO,

wee ee Se eS eS SS

Defendants.

& &
AMENDED COMPLAINT & ~
oe
Ree
Pursuain to leave of court, plaintiff files this amended cSmplaint and, by

counsel, alleges as follows:

1, This is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The jurisdiction of
this court is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1343.

2. Plaintiff Noble Martin is a resident of the Northern District of Illinois.
3. Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is an Illinois municipal corporation,

4, Defendants COREY FLAGG and BRODERICK JONES were at all times

relevant acting under color their authority as Chicago police officers.
5. REVISE HERE

6. On August 16, 2001, defendants FLAGG and JONES arrested plaintiff
and caused plaintiff to be charged with a criminal offense. Defendants

FLAGG and JONES fabricated the evidence on which they made this

\

arrest and did not have a lawful basis on which to make this arrest.



VW.

12.

Defendants FLAGG and JONES used excessive and unreasonable force in

placing plaintiff under arrest.

Thereafter, defendants FLAGG and JONES concealed defendant's inno-
cence of any criminal wrongdoing from the prosecutors and thereby

caused plaintiff 10 be held in custody for 7 months awaiting trial.
Plaintiff was acquitted of all charges on March 6, 2002.

Defendants FLAGG and JONES fabricated the evidence on which
plaintiff's prosecution was based as the result of the deliberate indiffer-
ence of defendant City of Chicago to the fabrication of evidence by its

police officers.

As the direct and proximate result of the above described acts, plaintiff
was deprived of rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury.

Wherefore plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in his favor and

against defendants in an amount in excess of one hundred thousand dollars as

compensatory damages and against defendants FLAGG and JONES in the

amount of one hundred thousand dollars as punij

damages,

fu N. FLAXMAN
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1850
Chicago, Mlinois 60603

(312) 427-3200
attorney for plaintiff


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that 1 caused a copy of the foregoing to be served on Bridget
Moore, Ass’t Corp Counsel, 30 N LaSalle Street, Ste 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602, by

first class mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of Mpvember, 2002.

Biers N. FLAXMAN
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 427-3200

attorney for plaintiff
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6169

CHRISTOPHER ODOM,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-02713-RMG)

Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Albert Richard Pierce, 

Jr., HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Odom seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the 

magistrate judge, and dismissing Odom’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 26, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on January 13, 

2014. Because Odom failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED