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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 928 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 928

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority of the 
   Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use bid savings on major medical 
 facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand or 
change the scope of a major medical facility project of the Department, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2011

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority of the 
   Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use bid savings on major medical 
 facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand or 
change the scope of a major medical facility project of the Department, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              USE BID SAVINGS ON MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS FOR 
              EXPANSION OR CHANGE OF SCOPE OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY 
              PROJECTS.

    Section 8104(d)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(C) The Secretary may not obligate an amount under subparagraph 
(A) to expand or to change the scope of a major medical facility 
project except pursuant to a provision of law enacted after the date on 
which the Secretary submits to the committees described in subparagraph 
(B) notice of the following:
            ``(i) The major medical facility project that is the source 
        of the bid savings.
            ``(ii) The major medical facility project for which the 
        Secretary intends to expand or change the scope.
            ``(iii) A description of such expansion or change of scope.
            ``(iv) The amounts the Secretary intends to obligate for 
        such expansion or change of scope.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Paula K. STONE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER CORPORATION DISABILITY PLANS, erroneously sued as Bayer Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan and Bayer Corporation, an Indiana corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-35665.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*163Submitted July 14, 2011.*

Filed July 20, 2011.

Ralph E. Wiser, III, Wiser *&*Associates, Lake Oswego, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Jerome Schreibstein, Law Office of Jerome Schreibstein, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Plaintiffs favor. For the reasons stated in the district court’s well-written and well-reasoned Opinion and Order of January 15, 2010, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2019295EN.01004601.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/46

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Nobilia v Parliament

(Case T-420/19)

(2019/C 295/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mauro Nobilia (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.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 9 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 9

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2011

            Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expiration of the 
term of Robert P. Kogod of the District of Columbia, is filled by 
reappointment of the incumbent for a term of 6 years, effective May 6, 
2011.

            Passed the Senate March 15, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Opinion issued May 7 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00566
- CV

——————————— DANNA LETRICE HARRIS , Appella nt

V. ME ALPHA , Appell e e
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1108977

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 25, 2019 . On March 13, 2019, we issued a notice advising appellant that unless the brief was filed within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Appellant neither timely2

filed a brief nor requested an extension. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)( 1) (the appellate court may dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to file appellant’s brief). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER C URIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Hightower.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 171 

Recognizing and supporting National Train Day on May 7, 2011. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Ms. 

MIKULSKI, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. COONS, and Mr. MERKLEY) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and supporting National Train Day on May 

7, 2011. 

Whereas Amtrak was founded on May 1, 1971, bringing together the passenger train operations of 20 separate rail 

companies; 

Whereas Amtrak is celebrating its 40th anniversary of providing passenger rail service to the country; 

Whereas Amtrak introduced high-speed Acela Express service, the fastest train in North America, to the Northeast 

Corridor in 2000; 

Whereas Amtrak ridership increased in each of the 17 

months between November 2009 and March 2011; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 171 IS 

Whereas in 2011, Amtrak will send an ‘‘exhibit train’’ to 

travel the country with educational exhibits and historical 

styling to showcase the railroad’s history to the public; 

Whereas Amtrak trains and infrastructure carry commuters 

to and from work in congested metropolitan areas, providing a reliable rail option and reducing congestion on 

roads and in the skies; 

Whereas for many rural Americans, Amtrak represents the 

only major intercity transportation link to the rest of the 

country; 

Whereas passenger trains provide a more fuel-efficient transportation system, cleaner transportation alternatives, and 

energy security; 

Whereas on a per-passenger-mile basis, intercity passenger 

rail was 25 percent more energy efficient than airplanes 

and 30 percent more energy efficient than automobiles in 

2008; 

Whereas Amtrak provided intercity passenger rail travel to 

28,700,000 Americans in 46 States during fiscal year 

2010; and 

Whereas community railroad stations are a source of civic 

pride, a gateway to over 500 of our Nation’s communities, and a tool for economic growth: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and 

2 ideals of National Train Day, as designated by Amtrak. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
SCHEDULE 23.1

                                     CONSENT


We have issued our report dated  January 12, 1999,  accompanying  the  financial
statements of Pen Interconnect, Inc. appearing in the 1998 Annual Report on Form
10-KSB  for the  year  ended  September  30,  1998.  We  hereby  consent  to the
incorporation  by reference  of the  aforementioned  report in the  Registration
Statements  of Pen  Interconnect,  Inc.  on Forms  S-3  (File  No.  33-96444-D),
effective  August 4, 1997; File No.  333-29927,  effective August 29, 1997; File
No.  333-297,  effective  February 5, 1998;  and File No.  333-06451,  effective
August 31, 1998 and amended October 2, 1998) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-2618,
effective March 22, 1996).




                                                              GRANT THORNTON LLP


      Salt Lake City, Utah
      January 12, 1999
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 Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kara B. Jenny, Chief
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; 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/ Kara B. Jenny
-----------------
Kara B. Jenny
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2008

                                       25
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the 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 to my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  April 28, 2011 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 23, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 23, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0422. OKSANA SEPICH v. ARIS PAPADOPOULOS. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV249654
#### PEOPLE v. WESTCHESTER TRACTION CO.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County.

November 4, 1907.)

Pieadin g—Demurrer—-Jud gment.

Where, after the overruling of a demurrer to the original complaint, an answer was served, when plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint, which did not state'a cause of action in itself, to which defendant again demurred, plaintiff could not obtain judgment on the pleadings on the ground that such demurrer was frivolous, while the issue raised by the answer to the original complaint was undisposed of.

Action by the people against the Westchester Traction Company to annul the defendant’s franchise. On motion by plaintiff for judgment on demurrer to its supplemental complaint as frivolous. Denied..

Frank L,. Young, for plaintiff.

J. Aspinwall Hodge, for defendant.

TOMPKINS, J.

This is an action to annul the defendant’s charter* brought after leave had been obtained from the court by the Attorney General. There was a demurrer to the original complaint, which was overruled by the court at Special Term. From the order overruling the demurrer, there was an appeal to the Appellate Division, where the judgment overruling the demurrer was affirmed. An answer was-served to the original complaint, and thereafter a supplemental complaint was served, and to this supplemental complaint the defendant: demurs, and this motion is by plaintiff for judgment on the demurrer" to the supplemental complaint as frivolous, under section 537 of the: Code of Civil Procedure.

It can hardly be said that the demurrer is frivolous; but, without going into that question in detail, I think that the motion should be denied, for the reason that the issues raised by the original complaint and the answer thereto are pending and untried. I do not see how the plaintiff can have a judgment annulling the defendant’s charter while the issues presented by the original complaint and answer are undetermined. The supplemental complaint is purely and only “supplemental.” It does not restate the allegations of the original complaint.. It simply contains additional allegations in support of the plaintiff's-claim that the defendant has forfeited its charter, and further reasons *390for its annulment. The supplemental complaint does not of itself state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It entirely omits any allegation of the incorporation of the' defendant, or the granting to it of a franchise, or any allegation concerning its business and operation ; nor does it state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought in the action. Judgment cannot be given upon such a supplemental complaint, while an answer stands to the original complaint.

Motion for judgment on the demurrer as frivolous denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6707** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JAMES EDWARD TYER, a/k/a James Edward Tyler, a/k/a Tyer Edward James, a/k/a Jay , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00043

- CMH

- 2; 1:12

- cv - 00753

- CMH )

Submitted : December 26, 2013 Decided: January 7, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.

James Edward Ty er , Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Keim, Tino Martin Lisella, Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Edward Tyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will n ot issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find th at the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the p risoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude th at Tyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 
  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 
  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Ronald W. Noble, President and Chief Executive Officer
  of Apiva Ventures Limited ("Apiva"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my
  knowledge:

|1. | The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Apiva for the
        year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
        78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of Apiva.                                                                                             



|                  | /s/ Ronald W. Noble                  
|----------------- | -------------------------------------
|Vancouver, Canada | Ronald W. Noble                      
|July 30, 2004     | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apiva and will be retained by Apiva and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit
10.7


 


Administrative
Service Agreement


 


This
Administrative Service Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated this            the day of             , 2021 is between Aquarius Sponsor Ltd, herein referred
to as “Service Provider” and Aquarius I Acquisition Corp., herein referred to as “Customer”.


 


Service
Provider has agreed to provide services to the Customer on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, while Customer is of the
opinion that Service Provider has the proper and necessary qualifications, experience and abilities to provide services to Customer.


 


Therefore
in consideration of the matters described above, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the Customer
and the Service Provider agree as follows:


 


		1.	Scope
                                            of Work



 


The
Service Provider is to provide the Customer with the following services (the “Services”): Company Administration.


 


The
services will include any other tasks which the Customer and the Service Provider may agree on.


 


		2.	Term
                                            of Agreement



 


This
Agreement will begin on [_______], 2021 and will remain in full force and effect until the completion of the Services. This Agreement
may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.


 


		3.	Termination
                                            



 


If
either party seeks termination of this Agreement, the terminating party must provide a 30 days written notice to the other party.


 


		4.	Compensation
                                            



 


The
Customer will provide compensation to the Service Provider of $10,000 per month for the services rendered by the Service Provider as
required by this Agreement. Compensation is payable at the completion of services.


 



     


     


    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures under hand on
this [_______] day of [_______], 2021.


 


	 	AQUARIUS
    SPONSOR LTD



 

	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	Sze Hau Lee
	 	Title:	Director
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	AQUARIUS
I ACQUISITION CORP.


 


	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	Sze Hau Lee
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
Case: 1:02-cv-04411 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/10/02 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:384
Case: 1:02-cv-04411 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/10/02 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:385
Case: 1:02-cv-04411 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/10/02 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:386
Case: 1:02-cv-04411 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/10/02 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:387
Case: 1:02-cv-04411 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/10/02 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:388