alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Angelia Rorison

February 29, 2024 publicaffairs@usccr.gov

Public Briefing

Civil Rights Implications of the Federal Use of Facial

Recognition Technology

March 8, 2024 | Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON D.C.-- The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a briefing on, Friday, March

8, 2024, on the civil rights implications of facial recognition technology (FRT). This investigation

will analyze how FRT is developed, its utilization by federal agencies, emerging civil rights

concerns, and safeguards the federal government is implementing to mitigate potential civil rights

issues.

Specifically, the Commission will review the utilization of FRT technology by three cabinet

agencies: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The Commission will accept written materials from the public for consideration as we prepare our

report; submit to frt@usccr.gov no later than April 8, 2024.

DATE:

Friday, March 8, 2024, 10 am – 4:40 pm ET*

LOCATION:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1150

Washington, DC 20425 (National Place Building F Street Entrance)

Introductory Remarks: 10:00 – 10:10 am 

Panel 1: Understanding FRT and Civil Rights Implications: 10:10 – 11:25 am

Break: 11:25 – 11:35 am

Panel 2: Federal Government Utilization and Safeguard Implementation of FRT: 11:35 am – 12:50pm

Lunch: 12:50 – 1:50 pm

Panel 3: Guidance for Meaningful Federal Oversight: 1:50 pm – 3:05 pm

Break: 3:05 – 3:15 pm

Panel 4: Actions for Strengthening Responsible Federal FRT Practices and Policies: 3:15 – 4:30 pm

Closing Remarks: 4:30 – 4:40 pm

Adjourn Meeting.

***The briefing will also be live-streamed on the Commission’s YouTube page, virtual attendance is encouraged due

to limited space.***

Stay abreast of updates at www.usccr.gov and on X and Facebook.

*Schedule subject to change

###

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, is the only independent, bipartisan agency charged

with advising the President and Congress on civil rights and reporting annually on federal civil rights enforcement. Our 56 state

Advisory Committees offer a broad perspective on civil rights concerns at state and local levels. The Commission: in our 7th decade, a

continuing legacy of influence in civil rights. For information about the Commission, please visit www.usccr.gov and on Twitter and

Facebook.
* 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. 97-50289 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEVON LEANDER BELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CR-105-1

- - - - - - - - - -

January 19, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jevon Leander Bell appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to suppress evidence. Bell was subject to a weapons

pat-down after police officers stopped the vehicle in which he

was a passenger because one of its occupants was not wearing a

seat belt. During the pat-down, the officers located a package

containing crack cocaine. Bell argues that the pat-down was not

justified because he presented no danger to the officers.
No. 97-50289 

-2-

The officers articulated specific facts supporting their

belief that Bell was armed and dangerous. See Terry v. Ohio, 392

U.S. 1, 22-24, 27 (1968); United States v. Baker, 47 F.3d 691,

693 (5th Cir. 1995). Bell appeared nervous and was observed

making furtive movements in the vehicle as if trying to hide

something. See United States v. Colin, 928 F.2d 676, 678 (5th

Cir. 1991); United States v. Garza, 921 F.2d 59, 59-60 (5th Cir.

1991). Additionally, the officers recognized Bell through

previous investigations as an individual involved in drug

trafficking, drive-by shootings, and gang activity. See, Garza,

921 F.2d at 59-60.

During the pat-down, the officers discovered a package

hidden in Bell’s trousers. Upon feeling the size and shape of

the package, it was immediately apparent to the officers that it

contained crack cocaine; thus probable cause to believe that Bell

possessed contraband arose during the course of the weapons patdown. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993);

United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 148 (5th Cir. 1995). The

continued search of Bell’s person was valid as a search pursuant

to arrest. United States v. Ho, 94 F.3d 932, 935 (5th Cir.

1996). 

The district court did not err in denying Bell’s motion to

suppress.

AFFIRMED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 22, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00025-CV ERICA STENSON, Appellant V. HIGH POINTE VILLAGE, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07145-D



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Evans Opinion by Justice Bridges In a letter dated December 5, 2013, the Court in formed appellant that her brief was past
due and directed her to file her brief along with an extension motion by December 16, 2013. We
cautioned appellant that failure to file her brief by the requested date woul d result in dismissal of
her appeal without further noti ce. As of today’s date, appe llant has not filed a brief.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appe al for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) &
42.3(b).

130025F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

ERICA STENSON, Appellant

No. 05-13-00025-CV V.
HIGH POINTE VILLAGE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-07145-D. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Moseley and Ev ans, participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee, HIGH POINTE VILL AGE, recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, ERICA STENSON.

Judgment entered January 22, 2014

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-56772, 333-56774, 333-21585, 333-23937, 333-39817 and 333-67881 of
Lightbridge, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated January 23, 2001 (February 7,
2001 as to Note 1 "Merger with Corsair Communications, Inc.") appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Lightbridge, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2000.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2001
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17

- 2011 Filed March 7, 2018
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. and H.C., Minor Children, D.C., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof , District Associate Judge.

The father appeals from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights t o two of his children

. AFFIRMED.

Timothy J. Tupper of Tupper Law Firm, Davenport, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Ana gha Dixit, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Christine D. Zamora Frederick of Zamora Taylor Woods & Frederick , Davenport, guardian ad litem for minor children.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.2

POTTERFIELD, Judge. The father appeals the termination of his parental right s to his children , H.C. and C .C. 1 The juvenile court terminated his parental rights to both children pursuant to Iowa Code sectio n 232.116(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), and ( l ) (2017). The father does not challenge whether the statutory grounds for termination have been met ,
so we need not consider this step

. See In re P.L. , 778 N.W.2d 33, 40 (Iowa 2010). Rather, he maintains termination is not in the children’s best interests because of the bond they share with him, and he asks for additional time to reunify with them. See Io wa Code § § 232.104(2)(b) , .116(2), (3)(c)

. Here, the children were removed from their parents’ care in July 2016 due to the parents’ issues with substance abuse. At the time of removal, both children tested positive for drugs

— including methamphetamine an d cocaine

— and the parents tested positive for methamphetamine and heroin . Though the parents initially participated in some services, they stopped attending all visitations beginning in January 2017 and had no contact with the children between that date

a nd the date of the termination hearing, in November 2017. Additionally, at the time of the termination hearing, the father had not yet attended any substance

abuse treatment and was incarcerated

. Based on this record, we can neither say the children are so bonded to the father that termination is at odds with their best interests nor that an additional six months would alleviate the need for the children’s removal from the father’s care.

1 The mother’s parental rights were also terminated. She does not appeal.3
We affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e).
AFFIRMED.
# C_2021375EN.01000701.xml

| 17.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10445 - Seventh Cinven Fund/Restaurant Brands Iberia)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 375/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Cinven Capital Management (VII) General Partner Limited (Guernsey, ‘Cinven’) |
| --- | --- |

—

Cinven Capital Management (VII) General Partner Limited (Guernsey, ‘Cinven’)

| — | Restaurant Brands Iberia S.A. (Spain, ‘RBI’) |
| --- | --- |

—

Restaurant Brands Iberia S.A. (Spain, ‘RBI’)

Cinven would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EUMR sole control over RBI.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | For Cinven: private equity business engaged in the provision of investment management and investment advisory services to a number of investment funds. Cinven controls a number of portfolio companies which are active in a variety of sectors across a range of jurisdictions. |
| --- | --- |

—

For Cinven: private equity business engaged in the provision of investment management and investment advisory services to a number of investment funds. Cinven controls a number of portfolio companies which are active in a variety of sectors across a range of jurisdictions.

| — | For RBI: company that provides quick service restaurant activities under the brands Burger King in Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar and Andorra, and Tim Hortons and Popeyes in Spain. |
| --- | --- |

—

For RBI: company that provides quick service restaurant activities under the brands Burger King in Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar and Andorra, and Tim Hortons and Popeyes in Spain.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

5.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10445 - Seventh Cinven Fund/Restaurant Brands Iberia S.A.

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0001017822
<NAME>                                  The Recovery Network, Inc.
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 2,219,145
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          254,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                           35,000
<INVENTORY>                                            55,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       2,780,239
<PP&E>                                                 369,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                         166,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         3,784,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,283,013
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               57,915
<OTHER-SE>                                             2,430,866
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           2,488,781
<SALES>                                                894,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       894,758
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          8,524,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (775,611)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (8,259,189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           2,545
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (8,261,734)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (8,261,734)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (1.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.91)
        

</TABLE>
Retaliation is illegal and 

degrades performance, 

mission execution, and is 

incompatible with our 

Core Values.

LEARN MORE

COAST GUARD

ANTI-RETALIATION

STOP RETALIATION BEFORE IT STARTS
MAILING CDs and DVDs 

Written By Author Unknown

Note that digital media sent via United States Postal Service is 

sometimes damaged in handling before it is delivered to the Coast 

Guard Hearing Office. CDs and DVDs and similar digital media may 

be rendered unreadable. Units submitting CDs and DVDs are 

encouraged to use overnight delivery service when mailing such 

media. And don't forget if the format is such that the Hearing Officer 

OR charged party cannot read the digital media, then the violation 

case file will be returned so printed images from the digital media 

can be made and inserted in the violation case file. Also remember to 

send two (2) copies of each CD or DVD. One copy is for the Hearing 

Officer and one copy is sent to the charged party along with the copy 

of the violation case file and the Hearing Officer's preliminary 

assessment letter. Finally, label the CD or DVD with the case file 

name and enforcement activity number.
# C_2022224EN.01016301.xml

| 8.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/163 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/163

---

P9_TA(2021)0479

Hague Convention (1980) on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: accession of Tunisia *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 November 2021 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising the Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Tunisia to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2021)0371 — C9-0337/2021 — 2021/0198(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 224/28)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2021)0371), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2021)0371),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0337/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0337/2021),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice (1) on the exclusive external competence of the European Union for a declaration of acceptance of an accession to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Rule 82 and Rule 114(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 and Rule 114(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0309/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0309/2021),

| 1. | Approves the authorisation for the Member States of the European Union to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Tunisia to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, 1/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2303.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212 

To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, California, into 

trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2015 

Mr. LAMALFA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, 

California, into trust for the benefit of the Susanville 

Indian Rancheria, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SUSANVILLE IN4 DIAN RANCHERIA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection 

6 (b) is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the 

7 Susanville Indian Rancheria, subject to valid existing 

8 rights. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2212 IH

1 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

2 pursuant to subsection (a) is the approximately 301 acres 

3 of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of 

4 the Bureau of Land Management identified as ‘‘Convey5 ance Boundary’’ on the map titled ‘‘Susanville Indian 

6 Rancheria Land Conveyance’’ and dated lll, includ7 ing improvements and appurtenances thereto. 

8 (c) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming under 

9 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 

10 seq.) shall not be allowed at any time on the land taken 

11 into trust pursuant to subsection (a). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *976Leonard Jackson, Appellant.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction after a jury trial of two counts of rape in the first degree and one count of sodomy in the first degree. At the hospital following the commission of the crime, claimant gave a history which included a detailed description of the events leading up to the rape and sodomy. Further, in this history the claimant identified by name her assailants. This hospital record was introduced into evidence over objection by defense counsel. On appeal defendant contends that this record was inadmissible hearsay, and improperly bolstered Ms. Scott’s testimony, and therefore reversible error. We agree.

Hospital records generally are admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518). However, this admissibility is limited to the extent the entries relate to the diagnosis and treatment of the patient *(People v Davis, 95*AD2d 837). The history portion of the hospital record as it relates to acts and occurrences not relevant to diagnosis or treatment of the patient are inadmissible *(Williams v Alexander,*309 NY 283, 287; Richardson, Evidence § 302, at 277 [Prince 10th ed 1973]). This hospital record is not admissible under the hearsay exception allowing testimony of a prompt complaint by the victim of the injury, as this report is not merely confined to the victim’s timely complaint, but rather provides a detailed report of the incident *(People v Vicaretti,*54 AD2d 236, 244). The history portion of the hospital record was therefore inadmissible and improperly bolstered the complainant’s testimony by showing that the witness had made previous similar statements *(see, People v Wooden,*66 AD2d 1004, 1005). This error cannot be deemed harmless as the sole direct evidence implicating defendant was the testimony of the complainant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241; *Gunn v City of New York,*104 AD2d 848).

We further note that the trial court erred in its charge as to burden of proof by employing the "balancing of the scales” test. This language has often been held to be inappropriate as it can lead a jury to believe that something less than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for conviction *(People v Wade, 99*AD2d 474, 475; *People v Thompson,*97 AD2d 554, 555; *People v Melville,*90 AD2d 488, 489; *People v Fox,*72 AD2d 146). Its continued use is strongly disapproved. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. —rape, first degree, and sodomy, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.