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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 145 

Designating April 15, 2011, as ‘‘National TEA Party Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. LEE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 15, 2011, as ‘‘National TEA Party Day’’. 

Whereas the deficit, as of April 15, 2011, is the third consecutive deficit in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 in 3 

years, and in the history of the United States; 

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that 

the so-called ‘‘Stimulus Bill’’, the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), included 

a laundry list of spending projects that has only increased our national debt; 

Whereas passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) was undertaken with 

guarantees of restricting unemployment to levels equal to 

or less than 8 percent, yet unemployment rates have consistently exceeded 8 percent; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 145 IS 

Whereas Congress should pass, and the States should ratify, 

a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure structural reform that will force Congress and the 

President to balance the budget; 

Whereas future bailouts of Wall Street have been codified by 

the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203); 

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that 

the bailouts of Wall Street by the United States Government have been ineffective and a waste of taxpayer funding; 

Whereas the Federal Government must borrow approximately 

40 cents of every dollar of Federal spending, causing our 

Nation to continue on an unsustainable path of increasing debt; 

Whereas Congress should enact permanently lower tax rates 

and a simpler tax code so that taxpayers and business 

owners no longer face heavy compliance costs and the uncertainty of tax rates that increase automatically; 

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States agree that the 

United States Government should stop wasteful spending, 

reduce the tax burden on families and businesses, and 

focus on policies that will lead to job creation and economic growth; and 

Whereas taxpayers in the United States are expressing their 

opposition to efforts to raise taxes, the unsustainable 

debt, the failure to enact systematic budget reforms, and 

skyrocketing spending by the United States Government 

by organizing ‘‘Taxed Enough Already’’ parties, also 

known as ‘‘TEA’’ parties: Now, therefore, be it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 145 IS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates April 15, 2011, 

2 as ‘‘National TEA Party Day’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50173

Summary Calendar

 

NICOLAS LONDONO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

LESTER E. FLEMING,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CV-182

- - - - - - - - - -

December 1, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicolas Londono, federal prisoner # 43758-066, pleaded

guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to

120-months of incarceration, the result of a two-level

enhancement in offense level because his coconspirator carried a

weapon in furtherance of the conspiracy. Londono enrolled in and

successfully completed the residential drug abuse treatment

program at the prison. The program provides for a sentence

reduction of up to one year for inmates whose offense of

conviction was nonviolent. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). The 
No. 98-50173

-2-

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) concluded that Londono was not eligible

for the sentence reduction because his sentence for the narcotics

offense had been enhanced for carrying a weapon. 

Londono filed an application for habeas corpus relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging this action of the BOP. Without

serving the respondent either with the suit or the judgment, the

district court granted Londono habeas relief by ordering the BOP

to consider him a nonviolent offender for the purpose of

determining his eligibility for the one-year sentence reduction. 

R. 61-66. On motion of the respondent, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b), the district court vacated the original judgment and

ultimately denied relief under Venegas v. Hennman, 126 F.3d 760,

761 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting 

Rule 60(b) relief to the respondent. See Carimi v. Royal

Carribean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir. 1992);

Hester Int’l. Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 879 F.2d 170

(5th Cir. 1989). Additionally, this court in Venegas addressed

Londono’s contentions and held that the BOP’s "exclusion of . . .

drug convictions with enhanced sentences due to possession of a

weapon from eligibility for early release after substance abuse

treatment is consistent with the Bureau’s authority." Venegas,

126 F.3d at 763-64. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Londono’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,529)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,323
<PP&E>                                          36,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,608)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     193,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,922
<SALES>                                        109,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,412
<CGS>                                           25,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    99
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    406
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
Order filed August 6, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00241-CV

____________

LISA PRIYMAK AND GAREGUIN STEP, Appellant

V.

KROGER CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-19634

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due July 20, 2015. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 21, 2015, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 154 

Designating July 8, 2011, as ‘‘Collector Car Appreciation Day’’ and recognizing that the collection and restoration of historic and classic cars 

is an important part of preserving the technological achievements and 

cultural heritage of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2011 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. BURR) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 8, 2011, as ‘‘Collector Car Appreciation 

Day’’ and recognizing that the collection and restoration 

of historic and classic cars is an important part of preserving the technological achievements and cultural heritage of the United States. 

Whereas many people in the United States maintain classic 

automobiles as a pastime and do so with great passion 

and as a means of individual expression; 

Whereas the Senate recognizes the effect that the more than 

100-year history of the automobile has had on the economic progress of the Nation and supports wholeheartedly all activities involved in the restoration and exhibition of classic automobiles; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 154 ATS 

Whereas collection, restoration, and preservation of automobiles is an activity shared across generations and 

across all segments of society; 

Whereas thousands of local car clubs and related businesses 

have been instrumental in preserving a historic part of 

the heritage of this Nation by encouraging the restoration and exhibition of such vintage works of art; 

Whereas automotive restoration provides well-paying, highskilled jobs for people in all 50 States; and 

Whereas automobiles have provided the inspiration for music, 

photography, cinema, fashion, and other artistic pursuits 

that have become part of the popular culture of the 

United States: Now therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 8, 2011, as ‘‘Collector Car 

3 Appreciation Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes that the collection and restora5 tion of historic and classic cars is an important part 

6 of preserving the technological achievements and cul7 tural heritage of the United States; and 

8 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

9 to engage in events and commemorations of ‘‘Col10 lector Car Appreciation Day’’ that create opportuni11 ties for collector car owners to educate young people 

12 on the importance of preserving the cultural heritage 

13 of the United States, including through the collec14 tion and restoration of collector cars. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Alexia FODERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pablo LORENZO, Compacstone USA, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-10991

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Stephen Asher Ostrow, John Bruce Os-trow, John B. Ostrow, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carlos F. Osorio, Hendrik G. Milne, Aballi Milne Kalil, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal concerns the propriety of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Defendant Pablo Lorenzo was a salesman employed by defendant Compacstone, a company that sells marble and quartz to be installed in homes. Plaintiff Alexia Fodere is a professional photographer who brought a copyright infringement action against the defendants. She alleged that they used the “Orange Kitchen” photograph she sold them for $600.00 for advertising, without her permission. The summary judgment was based on a finding that the defendants met their burden of establishing as an affirmative defense that the parties had an oral agreement granting the defendants an exclusive license to use the photograph for advertising.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed *de novo,*“construing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” *Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc.,*611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, taken as a whole, establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Id.;*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Having carefully reviewed and considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. Although Fodere claims that the photograph she sold the defendants was intended to be used only for “public relations, website, [and] collateral usage,” we agree with the district court that the “ambiguous” statements in Fodere’s deposition are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants were entitled to use the Orange Kitchen photograph for advertising purposes.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Metalline  Mining  Company
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30,  2006,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Wayne L. Schoonmaker,  Principal  Financial 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, as amended; 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/ Wayne L. Schoonmaker
----------------------------
Principal Financial Officer


Dated:  June 14, 2006


                                       E-5
#### Minneapolis Mill Company *vs.*Minneapolis *&*St. Louis Railway Company.

June 11, 1891.

Common-Law Dedication, to Railway Company. — A railroad corporation cannot take title to lands through a common-law dedication to public use. Following-*Watson*v. *Chicago, Mil. & St. Paul By. Co., supra,*p. 321.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county,. *Lochren,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial after judgment ordered for defendant.

*Flannery <& Cooke*and *Jackson & Atwater,*for appellant.

*Albert F. Clarke*and *W. F. Booth,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

So far as the defendant relies for a defence upon dedication of the real estate to public use, and the right of plaintiff to bringejeetment, the questions are disposed of by the opinion in *Watson*v. Chicago, *Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co., supra,*p. 321.

Order reversed.

Note. A motion for veargument of this case was denied July 1, 1891.
Exhibit 10.13

Memorandum

To: Paul and Joan Katzeff

From: Roy Doughty

Re: Renewal of agreement for shareholder relations.

Date: 11/26/04

Introduction

The shareholder agreement for the calendar year 2005 will basically simply ratify what Roy Doughty has been doing since February of 1998, and extend those duties through
the year 2005. The agreement will be with Roy Doughty only.

Tasks



| |  |  | Take calls from stockholders, fulfill their information requests regarding stock price, company activities, and any other appropriate matters
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Notify Thanksgiving Coffee of changes
| | - |  | -------------------------------------



| |  |  | Notify transfer company of changes
| | - |  | ----------------------------------



| |  |  | Work with Ted Prescott regarding stockholder relations, buys and sells
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Work with the SEC attorney (when necessary and cost-effective) regarding SEC requirements
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Review any newsletters to stockholders
| | - |  | --------------------------------------



| |  |  | Coordinate with Sam on quarterly SEC stockholder fillings
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Work with top management to create liquidity as soon as possible
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

Costs

Costs will be $1500.00 per month, plus postage, phone, other normally occurring administrative expenses, plus logistic costs if any.

Term of this contract would be from January 1st, 2005 to December 31st, 2005. Invoicing will be done on the 1st of the month for the prior months work and
is due within 10 days of receipt.

Agreement completed on by the signatures below (sign and date),



|                    |  |  |  |                    
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------
|Joan Katzeff,       |  |  |  | Paul Katzeff       
|                    |  | 
|/s/    Joan Katzeff |  |  |  | /s/    Paul Katzeff
|                    |  | 
|Roy Doughty,        |  |  |  | 11/26/04           
|                    |  | 
|/s/    Roy Doughty  |  |  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                         115,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  441,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   129,400
<INVENTORY>                                    320,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               766,500
<PP&E>                                         601,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,923,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,575,400
<BONDS>                                        255,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,900
<OTHER-SE>                                     701,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,923,100
<SALES>                                        909,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               909,300
<CGS>                                           42,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,727,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,200,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,200,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,200,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.20)



</TABLE>
#### ELIZABETH ADAMO *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JAMES CHIRLO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. James A. Major*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph H. Gaudielle*and *Mr. Herbert Koranshy*for the respondents. ' ■ ■ '■ •

May 16, 1960.

Denied.
# C_2019328EN.01005701.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/57

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2019 — 3V Sigma v ECHA

(Case T-176/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - REACH - UVASORB HEB - Evaluation procedure - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ECHA - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2019/C 328/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented, initially, by C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and C. Krampitz, lawyer, and, subsequently, by C. Bryant, S. Hainsworth and D. Anderson, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented, initially, by M. Heikkilä and W. Broere and, subsequently, by W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the application of Decision A-004-2017 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 15 January 2019 regarding the substance evaluation of the chemical substance UVASORB HEB and, consequently, the extension, for the duration of the suspension, of the prescribed period for submission of the results of the tests, or an order for any other or additional measure which the President of the Court may consider necessary or appropriate.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs shall be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs shall be reserved.

---
#### Warren D. WAMSLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden David BALLARD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-7872.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Warren D. Wamsley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert David Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Warren D. Wamsley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court granted a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wamsley v. Ballard,*No. 2:07-cv-00041-*755REM-JES, 2008 WL 3286390 (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 8, 2008). We deny Wamsley’s motion for appointment of counsel. We further deny Wamsley’s motion for clarification as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6291

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY MCKENZIE DAVIS, a/k/a Lil C,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00672-JFA-2)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey McKenzie Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Tara L. McGregor, Jane 

Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey McKenzie Davis appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce 

his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Davis, No. 3:07-cr00672-JFA-2 (D.S.C. Jan. 17, 2012). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED