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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 220 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the June 30, 2011, opening 

of the Tom Lantos Institute in Budapest, Hungary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2011 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. REID) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the June 30, 

2011, opening of the Tom Lantos Institute in Budapest, 

Hungary. 

Whereas the late Congressman Tom Lantos was a champion 

of human and minority rights in Europe and around the 

world; 

Whereas Congressman Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to 

be elected to the United States Congress, was a leading 

voice on human rights and founding co-chairman of the 

Congressional Human Rights Caucus, now known as the 

Tom Lantos Human Rights Caucus; 

Whereas Congressman Lantos always remained a proud Hungarian-American and an active promoter of strong cooperation between the country of his birth and the 

United States; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 220 ATS 

Whereas Congressman Lantos was a tireless advocate for tolerance and moderation, virtues embodied in the stated 

mission of the Tom Lantos Institute in Budapest; 

Whereas the Tom Lantos Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, and independent organization supported by the 

Government of Hungary and dedicated to the goal of promoting human and minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe; 

Whereas educational programs on human and minority rights 

will lay the foundation for a more sustainable and inclusive peace; and 

Whereas a strong transatlantic partnership is in the mutual 

interests of the United States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate— 

2 (1) to recognize and applaud the opening of the 

3 Tom Lantos Institute; 

4 (2) to acknowledge the Government of Hungary 

5 for honoring the legacy of Congressman Lantos 

6 through its contributions to the Institute; 

7 (3) to express support for the principles of the 

8 Institute, including democracy, pluralism, and 

9 human and minority rights; 

10 (4) to express support for the education of 

11 present and future generations in Central and East12 ern Europe, which will contribute to regional co13 operation, historical reconciliation, and tolerance 

14 throughout the Euro-Atlantic region; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 220 ATS 

1 (5) to encourage the people and the govern2 ments of the United States and the countries of 

3 Central and Eastern Europe to continue to deepen 

4 and broaden their relations. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6617

SHAWN X. HENNY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. A. P. HARVEY; B. WATSON; M. HENSLEY; DR. LOU CEI; P. SCARBERRY; LINDA B. SHEAR; LARRY HUFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00399-jct-mfu)

Submitted: October 27, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn X. Henny, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shawn X. Henny appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants in his action alleging claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Henny v. Harvey , No. 7:08-cv-00399-jct-mfu (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2009). We deny Henny’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Cooper BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10244

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 2009.

William Martin, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert John Reagan, Reagan & McLain, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*81Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Cooper Burgess appeals following his guilty plea convictions for mail fraud and aiding and abetting bank fraud. Burgess argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.

In determining whether a district court has abused its discretion in denying a motion withdraw a guilty plea, this court considers a number of factors, including assertions of innocence, delay in moving to withdraw, the availability of close assistance of counsel, and the voluntariness of the plea. *See United States v. Carr,*740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984).

Burgess argues that, because his attorney severely underestimated his likely sentence, his guilty plea was involuntary and he was denied the close assistance of counsel. Burgess’s contentions are belied by his “solemn declarations in open court” that he understood his maximum possible sentence and that he should not rely on any promises of a particular sentence. *Blackledge v. Allison,*431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); *see James v. Cain,*56 F.3d 662, 666 (5th Cir. 1995). Burgess also has not shown that his substantial delay in moving to withdraw his plea and his unsupported assertion of innocence weigh in favor of allowing withdrawal. *See*Carr, 740 F.2d at 344-45.

Burgess has not established that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw. *See United States v. Powell,*354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003). Because Burgess has not “alleged] sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief,” the district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Burgess’s motion to withdraw his plea. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Hodges, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered November 1, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Feldman, J.), without a hearing, of so much of defendant’s omnibus motion as sought dismissal of the indictment.

Judgment affirmed.

Under the circumstances herein, Criminal Term did not err in denying, without a hearing, so much of defendant’s omnibus motion as sought dismissal of the indictment on due process grounds due to a nine-month preindictment delay (see, *People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 159-160; *People v Singer,*44 NY2d 241, 253-255; *People v Staley,*41 NY2d 789; *People v King,*114 AD2d 650; *People v Bonsauger,*91 AD2d 1001). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         781
<SECURITIES>                                   14,612
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                   505
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,238
<PP&E>                                         9,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,569
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       99
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,220
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,293
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (472)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                   910
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,677
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.15



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

# AGENCY:

National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This 2-day, virtual workshop—Exploring the Science Surrounding the Safe Use of Bioactive Ingredients in Infant Formula: Considerations for an Assessment Framework—focuses on the functional state-of-the-science of biologically active human milk components and analogs and the implications for safety assessments when used in infant formula.

# DATES:

The Meeting will be held on September 23-24, 2021, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET).

# ADDRESSES:

                        This workshop will be videocast at                         *https://videocast.nih.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For information concerning this meeting, contract Dr. Ashley Vargas, Pediatric Growth and Nutrition Branch, Division of Extramural Research,                         *Eunice Kennedy Shriver*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6701B Rockledge Drive, Room 2423C, Bethesda, MD 20817, telephone: 301-827-6030, email:                         *ashley.vargas@nih.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This                     **Federal Register**                     notice is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 285g, of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. This workshop is led by the                     *Eunice Kennedy Shriver*                     National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The workshop is free and open to the public. The workshop will be livestreamed, and the video will be archived. Registration will be available for this meeting at                     *https://www.nichd.nih.gov/​about/​meetings/​2021/​092321.*

Alison N. Cernich,

Deputy Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2021-16118 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 
 

 
  
 Agency Agreement 
 Principle: 
 Timesco of London Ltd. 
 Timesco House 
 1 Knights Road 
 London E16 2AT 
 England 
 Agent: 
 Beijing Dehaier Medical Technology Co. Ltd. 
 1223 Epoch Center 31 Zizhuyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China 
 Agreement Basis: 
 Beijing Dehaier to act as Timesco’s exclusive agent for range
of products specified. Timesco will not sell any agreed products into China through any other distributor. Beijing Dehaier will no sell competition products from any other principals in China. 
 Territory for agency agreement: 
 Mainland of China, excluding Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macao 
 Term: 
 Start date: 09/08/2009, for a period of 1 year: 09/08/2010. Review on performance every
six months. 
 Products: 
 Optima, Optima XL, Eclipse. 
 Other brands can be
added to follow based on minimum agreed sales values. Dehaier may also purchase any other brands and sale which may not have any agreements which Timesco has made with other distributors. 







 

 
  
 Quantities of items: 
 500 x Eclipse sets approximately minimum 
 800 x Optima sets approximately minimum 
 Annual Sales Target: 
 $200,000.00 net minimum.

 Order Placement: 
 Minimum order: $50,000 in every three months. 
 Payment Terms: 
 50% of the goods value will be T/T from Agent to Principle before Principle
dispatch the goods, the rest of 50% will be T/T from Agent to Principle within 90 days. 
 Exclusion: 

All new contracts/quotations etc will not be actioned by Timesco from other distributors after the signed agreement by
both parties. 
 Any existing contracts, orders in hand, quotations quoted prior to the agreed signed agreement
will be supplied by Timesco. After the signed agreement, all enquiries for Optima and Eclipse will be referred to De-Haier to action. 
 Principle: 
 Agent: 
 Mr. S Fayyaz 
 Managing Director 
 Mr. Ping Chen 
 Managing Director 
 2009.8.9
Exhibit
10.13


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


SERIES
B PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Series B Preferred Stock Purchase Warrant (the “Warrant”),
issued to Leviston Resources LLC by Creek Road Miners, Inc. (f/k/a Wizard Brands, Inc.) (the “Company”) on March 26,
2021 and expiring on March 26, 2023, is effective as of July 16, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). Capitalized
terms used herein and not defined have the meanings given them in the Warrant.


 


RECITALS


 


A.
Pursuant to Section 6(l) of the Warrant, each party desires to execute and deliver this Amendment to reflect the matters set forth
herein.


 


AGREEMENTS


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


 1. Forced Exercise. Section 5 of the Warrant is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




 


“Forced
Exercise. The Company can force exercise this Warrant upon five days advance written notice (during which period the Warrant will
remain exercisable) if the VWAP exceeds $3.75 per share for twenty (20) consecutive Trading Days and the daily average trading volume
of the Common Stock exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) in aggregate value for such period. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Warrant, the Warrant holder may not be forced to exercise this Warrant if such exercise would cause Warrant holder’s beneficial
ownership (as defined by Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) of the shares of Common Stock of the Company
to exceed 4.9% of its total issued and outstanding voting shares.”


 


2.
Miscellaneous. For the avoidance of doubt, references in the Warrant to the “Warrant” shall be deemed a reference
to the Warrant as amended by this Amendment. 


 


3.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and any party hereto may execute any such counterpart, each of which
when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and
the same instrument. 


 


4.
No Other Amendments. Except as otherwise specifically amended in this Amendment, the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[Signature
Pages Follow.]


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date.


 


	 	CREEK
    ROAD MINERS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:
    	 
	 	Name:
    	Scott
    Kaufman
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	LEVISTON
    RESOURCES LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:
    	 
	 	Name:
    	Roman
    Rogol
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Financial Officer


 


[Signature
Page to Amendment No. 1 to Series 1 Warrant]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William J. Haughey, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 510]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 17, 2009 *(People v Haughey,*67 AD3d 928 [2009]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County, rendered April 16, 2008.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
# C_2022482EN.01001501.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Feralpi v Commission

(Case T-657/19) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices - Limiting and controlling output and sales - Decision taken following the annulment of earlier decisions - New hearing held in the presence of the competition authorities of the Member States - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Reasonable period - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Ne bis in idem principle - Plea of illegality - single, complex and continuous infringement - Evidence of involvement in the cartel - Public distancing - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 482/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Feralpi Holding SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents, and by P. Manzini, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to a breach of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case AT.37956 — Concrete reinforcing bars) and/or annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Feralpi Holding SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Feralpi Holding SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
Case: 1:03-cv-00246 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/13/03 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                           JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                          137
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    85
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      5
<INVENTORY>                                                      46
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                396
<PP&E>                                                        1,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                1,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         1,275
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          3
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (56)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  1,222
<SALES>                                                         407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              3,137
<CGS>                                                           560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 1,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              1,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 549
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    549
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0.17


</TABLE>