alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jean Hebert JOSEPH, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 08-11616

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2009.

Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, VA, for Petitioner.

Nancy E. Friedman, David V. Bernal, Liza S. Murcia, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jean Herbert Joseph petitions this Court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158,1231; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c). Both the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judge denied Joseph’s applications based on a finding that Joseph was not credible. We deny the petition.

We review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence test. *Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*463 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (11th Cir.2006). Adverse credibility findings will be reversed “ ‘only if the evidence “compels” a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.’ ” *Id.*at 1231 (quoting *Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.2005)). An adverse credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods in the applicant’s oral and written statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Joseph was not credible, *see Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,*257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir.2001), and the immigration judge *496and Board provided specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. *Chen,*463 F.3d at 1231. There were several inconsistencies between Joseph’s application for asylum and his testimony. Joseph omitted from his original application for asylum that he fled Haiti after he was severely beaten with bats and a razor-tailed whip. Joseph wrote in his application that he was “very unpopular” with supporters of the Mochrena party in Haiti, but Joseph testified at his removal hearing that he was popular among supporters of the party. Joseph also made inconsistent statements at his removal hearing regarding the failure of his wife to testify on his behalf and the location of a letter allegedly written by his employer that had warned Joseph to leave Haiti. Joseph offers no explanation for his inconsistencies that would “ ‘compel’ a reasonable fact finder” to reverse the adverse credibility finding and conclude that he established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. *Id.*

Joseph’s petition for review is DENIED.

PETITION DENIED.
EXHIBIT
      23.1




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-3/A (File No. 333-81320) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File
      Nos. 333-60004 and 333-35450), of our report dated March 12, 2007 relating
      to
      our audit of the financial statements of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc.
      included in the 2006 annual report on Form 10-KSB.








Weiser
      LLP





New
      York,
      New York


March
      12,
      2007
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 643 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to direct Medicaid EHR 

incentive payments to federally qualified health centers and rural health 

clinics. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2011 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to direct 

Medicaid EHR incentive payments to federally qualified 

health centers and rural health clinics. 

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 ‘‘Fix HIT Act of 2011’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MEDICAID EHR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR FEDER6 ALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS AND 

7 RURAL HEALTH CLINICS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1903(t) of the Social Se9 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(t)) is amended— 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 643 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (6)(A)(i)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘are paid’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘(I) are paid’’; and 

4 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

5 end the following: ‘‘, and (II) in the case of a 

6 provider described in paragraph (2)(A)(iii), are 

7 paid directly to the Federally qualified health 

8 center or rural health clinic in which the pro9 vider predominantly practices, without any de10 duction or rebate’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(11) Nothing in this subsection shall be con14 strued to allow duplicate payments to a Medicaid 

15 provider described in paragraph (2)(A)(iii) and the 

16 Federally qualified health center or rural health clin17 ic in which the provider predominantly practices.’’. 

18 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Notwithstanding any other 

19 provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human 

20 Services may implement the amendments made by sub21 section (a) by program instruction or otherwise. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of 

24 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0644

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KAITLYN DAWN POLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 20, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 12 2022

12/12/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0644
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 155 

Designating April 23, 2011, as ‘‘National Adopt A Library Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. WEBB (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. WARNER) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 23, 2011, as ‘‘National Adopt A Library 

Day’’. 

Whereas libraries are an essential part of the communities 

and the national system of education in the United 

States; 

Whereas the people of the United States benefit significantly 

from libraries that serve as an open place for people of 

all ages and backgrounds to use books and other resources that offer pathways to learning, self-discovery, 

and the pursuit of knowledge; 

Whereas the libraries of the United States depend on the 

generous donations and the support of individuals and 

groups to ensure that people who are unable to purchase 

books still have access to a wide variety of resources; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 155 ATS 

Whereas certain nonprofit organizations facilitate the donation of books to schools and libraries across the United 

States, in order to extend the joy of reading to millions 

of people in the United States and to prevent used books 

from being thrown away; 

Whereas as of the date of agreement to this resolution, the 

libraries of the United States have provided valuable resources to individuals who are affected by the economic 

crisis by encouraging continued education and job training; and 

Whereas several States that recognize the importance of libraries and reading have adopted resolutions commemorating April 23 as ‘‘Adopt A Library Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 23, 2011, as ‘‘National 

3 Adopt A Library Day’’; 

4 (2) honors the organizations that facilitate do5 nations to schools and libraries; 

6 (3) urges people in the United States who own 

7 unused books to donate such books to local libraries; 

8 (4) strongly supports children and families who 

9 take advantage of the resources provided by schools 

10 and libraries; and 

11 (5) encourages the people of the United States 

12 to observe ‘‘National Adopt A Library Day’’ with 

13 appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019295EN.01005101.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/51

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Frantova v Parliament

(Case T-427/19)

(2019/C 295/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Jitka Frantova (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2021217EN.01004001.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)

(Case T-588/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Power Stars - Partial revocation declaration - Partial lack of genuine use - Proof of genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 217/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 2038/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00136-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 78th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC30-CR2020-0546

Before Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

EX PARTE ANTHONY JAMES FOREMAN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 22, 2020
## NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00 296 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E COLONEL CLIFTON HOSKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HAZEL HOSKINS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Order Per Curiam
Relator Colonel Clifton Hoskins, individually and as independent executor of the estate of Hazel Hoskins, f iled a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief in the above cause on June 12, 2018

. Through this original pro ceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its April 5, 2018 order denying relator’s amended motion for partial summary judgment and to grant the motion, or alternatively, to compel the trial court to vacate i t s May 10, 2018 order denying permission to appeal the summary judgment order and to grant permission to appeal. Through his motion for temporary2 relief, relator seeks to stay the trial court proceedings pending resolution of this original proceeding

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for temporary relief , is of the opinion that the motion should be granted

. We grant t he motion for te mporary relief and order all trial court proceeding to be stayed pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).
T he Court requests that the real party in interest , Marcus P. Rogers, receiver for the Marital Deduction Trust and the Residuary Trust created under the Last Will and Testament of Lee Roy “Cowboy” Hoskins Sr. , or any others whose in terest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See id. R

. 52.2, 52.4,
52.8. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elive red and filed this 13th day of June , 201 8

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleotis Mercer, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d *588]*

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
# C_2022303EN.01005702.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/57

---

Order of the General Court of 21 June 2022 — BAE Systems v Commission

(Case T-773/19) (1)

(2022/C 303/74)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Chief Executive Officer ofWorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that (1) the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies withrequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be retained by WorldGateand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 
| Dated: | November 17, 2004 | /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH                          |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |              |                                          |
|   |              | Hal M. Krisbergh, Principal Executive Officer |
|        |                   |                                               |  |

 

----
# C_2019131EN.01003401.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/34

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the Comune di Milano against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13 Comune di Milano v European Commission

(Case C-160/19P)

(2019/C 131/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Comune di Milano (represented by: A. Mandarano, E. Barbagiovanni, S. Grassani, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13, Comune di Milano v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-167/13, Comune di Milano v Commission;

| — | annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10)); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1225 of 19 December 2012 regarding injections of capital by SEA SpA into SEA Handling SpA (Case SA.21420 (C 14/10) (ex NN 25/10));

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-167/13 R. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case T-167/13 R.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the Comune di Milano against the aforementioned decision.

In support of its appeal, the Comune di Milano relies on four grounds of appeal, which all relate to infringement by the General Court of Article 107 TFEU and the absence, in the present case, of measures which may be classified as State aid.

By its first ground, the Comune di Milano, first, disputes that the alleged State aid measures made use of ‘state resources’ and, second, complains that the imputability ‘test’ developed by the General Court is incompatible with the principles established in Community case-law.

By its second ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano claims that the General Court infringed the principles concerning evidence of imputability, both from the perspective of unequal treatment as regards evidence and lack of evidence over an extended period of time.

By its third ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano alleges distortion of the facts and evidence by the General Court in the assessment of the evidence relied on by the Commission in support of its claim that the measures in question were imputable to the Comune di Milano.

By its fourth ground of appeal, the Comune di Milano disputes, on various grounds, all the assessments made by the General Court relating to the application, by the Commission, of the private investor in a market economy test (known as the Market Economy Investor Principle ‘MEIP’) and the findings set out in the judgment in that regard.

---
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 Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Melissa Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Melissa Payner-GregorMelissa Payner-Gregor

Chief Executive Officer


August 12, 2011
#### Hammond *v.*The State.

*Carrying Concealed Weapons.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1908.

45 South. 654.)

1. *Jury; Right to Trial by; Waiver in Misdemeanor Oases.-*— Under the provisions of sections 10 and 25 of an act (Acts 189G-7, p. 807) creating the Cleburne county court, a defendant charged with misdemeanor waives his right to a trial by jury if he fails to make a demand therefor before the first term of the court after his arrest.

2. *Criminal Law; Evidence; Opinion.*— The statement by a witness “I did not see where the pistol came from, but it is my judgment that he took it out of his pocket,” is the expression of a mere opinion on a subject which was for the determination of the jury and was improperly admitted.

Appeal from Cleburne County Court.

Heard before Hon. T. A. Johnson.

Zall Hammond was convicted of carrying a pistol concealed and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Evans & McMahon, for appellant.

The record must show that the defendant pleaded to the indictment, or that he stood mute, whereupon the court entered a plea of not *guilty.*— Jackson *v. The State,*91 Ala. 55; *State v. Books,*49 L. R. A. 189. Arraignment and pleading was not done away with by section 5262, Code 1896. The court erred in permitting the witness to state that in his judgment he took the pistol out of his *pocket.*— Talla*dega Ins. Co. v. Peacock,*67 Ala. 253; *Baker v. Trotter,*73 Ala. 277.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

The defendant had waived his right to trial by jury. — Acts 1896-7, p. 1813. The witness had the right to give his best *judgment.*— Mayberry *v. The State,*107 Ala. 64.

*82ANDERSON, J.

The defendant waived the right to a trial by jury by failing to make the demand for same before the first jury term of the court after his arrest.— Acts 1896-97, pp. 807, 813, §§ 10, 25.

The trial court erred in permitting the witness Nelmes to testify, over the objection of the defendant : “I did not see where the pistol came from; but it is my judgment that he took it out of his pocket.” The witness stated the circumstances and surroundings, and what he saw; and it Avas his opinion or conclusion that the defendant took it out of his pocket, as he said he did not see him get it out of his pocket. It Avas for the jury, or the court sitting without a jury, in this case to determine whether or not he got it out of his pocket. This evidence is unlike that in the case of *Mayberry v.*State, 107 Ala. 64, 18 South. 219.

Whether the court committed reversible error in not arraigning the defendant and giving him a chance to plead, before interposing the plea for him, \ve need not decide, as the case must be reversed because of the error above pointed out, and this irregularity need not occur upon the next trial. It is a safe practice to read or state the indictment to the accused, and give him a chance to plead thereto, before entering into the trial.

The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, O. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.