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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2035 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2035

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 
      program under such title relating to lifespan respite care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lifespan Respite Care 
Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Data Collection and Reporting.--Section 2904 of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290ii-3) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 2904. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING.

    ``Each eligible State agency awarded a grant or cooperative 
agreement under section 2902 shall collect, maintain, and report such 
data and records at such times, in such form, and in such manner as the 
Secretary may require to enable the Secretary--
            ``(1) to monitor State administration of programs and 
        activities funded pursuant to such grant or cooperative 
        agreement; and
            ``(2) to evaluate, and to compare effectiveness on a State-
        by-State basis, of programs and activities funded pursuant to 
        section 2902.''.
    (b) Funding.--Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300ii-4) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and 
inserting the following:
            ``(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2020;
            ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2021;
            ``(3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2022;
            ``(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2023; and
            ``(5) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2024.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2035

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 
      program under such title relating to lifespan respite care.
```
#### BILIK *v.*STRASSHEIM, SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 445.

Motion to dismiss or affirm.

Submitted October 13, 1908.

Decided October 19, 1908.

Appeal from judgment of Circuit Court, denying petition for writ of *•habeas corpus*where petitioner was held under process of the state court, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. There was no certificate of probable cause for allowing the appeal as required by the act of March 10, 1908, c. 76, 35 Stat. 40.1

*Mr. Francis E* Hinckley*and *Mr. S. S. Gregory*for appellant.

Mr. *John J. Healy,*State Attorney, Mr. *Erasmus C. Ldndley*and Mr. *James J. Barbour*for appellee.

1

 The act in question is as follows:

Chap. 76. — An Act Restricting in certain cases the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in *habeas corpus*proceedings.

*Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of. the Unir, ted States of America in Congress assembled,*That from a final decision by a court of the United; States in a proceeding in *habeas corpus*where the detention complained of is by virtue of process issued out of a state court no appeal to the Supreme Court shall be allowed unless the United States court by which the final'decision was rendered or a justice of the Supreme Court shall be of opinion that there exists probable cause for an appeal, in which event, on allowing the same, the said court or justice shall certify that there is probable causé for such allowance.

Approved, March 10, 1908, 35 Stat. 40.

*Per Curiam:*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Innova Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
Weisel, 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 respect, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

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


/s/ Walter Weisel
-----------------
Name:  Walter Weisel
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  April 15, 2005
Exhibit
10.104


 


AMENDMENT NO. 3


to


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as
of January 6, 2006 (“Amendment No. 3”) by and among VCampus Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “VCampus”), and Christopher
L. Nelson (“Nelson”).  All
capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Employment Agreement dated as of June 3, 2002 between the
Company and Nelson (the “Employment Agreement”), as amended by Amendment
No. 1 thereto executed by the Company and Nelson on or about December 13, 2002
(“Amendment No. 1”) and the Amendment No. 2 thereto executed by the
Company and Nelson on or about June 25, 2003 (“Amendment No. 2”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
Nelson desire to amend the Employment Agreement in accordance with the terms
hereof to provide the terms of Nelson’s performance bonus compensation for 2006
as approved by the Company’s Compensation Committee.


 


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


 


1.     Establishment
of Bonus Terms for 2006.  Consistent
with Company policy with respect to compensation of other executive officers,
Nelson’s performance for bonus compensation purposes shall be measured on a
calendar year basis in 2006.  Nelson’s
performance bonus compensation for the year ending December 31, 2006 shall be
determined in accordance with the terms set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
(which shall replace and supersede the provisions of Section 3(d) of the
Employment Agreement, as amended, for 2006).


 


2.     Continuing
Force and Effect.  Except to the
extent modified herein, the Employment Agreement (as amended by Amendment No. 1
and Amendment No. 2) shall continue in full force and effect to the extent of
and in accordance with its terms.


 


3.     Counterparts.  This Amendment No. 3 may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


4.     Governing
Law.  This Amendment No. 3 shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of
Virginia (without reference to conflicts of law provisions thereof).


 


5.     Headings.  The various headings of this Amendment No. 3
are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or
interpretation of this Amendment No. 3 or any provision hereof.


 


[Remainder
of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


 





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT as of the date first written above.


 


 


	
  VCampus Corporation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
     /s/
  Narasimhan P. Kannan

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Narasimhan P. Kannan

  	
   

  
	
  Chairman of the Board
  and CEO

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Christopher L. Nelson

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Christopher L. Nelson
# C_2019093EN.01005702.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/57

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 January 2019 — achtung! v EUIPO (achtung!)

(Case T-832/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark achtung! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 93/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: achtung! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Seelig and D. Bischof, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially A. Söder, J. Schäfer and D. Walicka, and subsequently A. Söder, J. Schäfer and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2017 (Case R 490/2017-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark achtung!.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders achtung! GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders achtung! GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---
August 30, 2021

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: BTNL 2021-004 - Self-Certification Pursuant to CFTC Regulation 40.6 – Fee 

Schedule

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Bitnomial Exchange, LLC (“Bitnomial” or the “Exchange”) hereby submits for self-certification 

to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission” or “CFTC”), under 

Commission regulation 40.6(a), the following plans to update the Exchange’s fee schedule. The 

proposed changes will become effective on September 14, 2021.

The fees to trade the Bitcoin US Dollar contract (“BUS”) future and the Deci Bitcoin US Dollar 

contract (“BUI”) future will both be $2.00. The purposes of the fee changes are to add transparency 

to Bitnomial’s pricing structure. There is no charge for making or taking delivery on the underlying 

contract. Bitnomial may offer incentive programs to lower BUS and BUI fees for certain market 

participants. 

Contract Symbol Fee Delivery Fee

Bitcoin US Dollar BUS $2.00 -

Deci Bitcoin US Dollar BUI $2.00 -

Core Principal Compliance

Bitnomial has concluded that its compliance with DCM Core Principles is not adversely affected 

by these changes. The Exchange will continue to comply with all DCM Core Principles. The 

Exchange has reviewed the Core Principles as set forth under Section 5 of the Commodity 

Exchange Act, as amended (the “Act”), and determined that the rule changes pertain to the 

following Core Principles:

Core Principal 7 - Availability of General Information:

Notification of the updated fee schedule has been posted to Bitnomial’s website at 

https://bitnomial.com/regulation in compliance with this Core Principal. Interested Market 

Participants may contact the Exchange for additional information concerning the Program.
Core Principle 21, Financial Resources:

The proposed fee changes will not impact the Exchange’s ability to discharge its financial, 

operational, or managerial responsibilities as a DCM. 

Certification

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Act and CFTC Regulation 40.6(a), Bitnomial certifies that the 

updated fee schedule complies with the Act and regulations thereunder. Bitnomial is not aware of 

any opposing views to the fee update.

Bitnomial certifies that a copy of this submission has been concurrently posted on the Exchange’s 

website at https://bitnomial.com/regulation.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact the undersigned at 

james.walsh@bitnomial.com.

Sincerely, /s/ 

James A. Walsh

Chief Regulatory Officer

Bitnomial Exchange, LLC
144 So. 916

#### Jim Carr HILL v. STATE.

4 Div. 687.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 25, 1932.

J. C. Fleming, of Elba, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of Jim Carr Hill for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Hill v. State, 144 So. 923.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 38-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 21
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1983 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1983

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 
                     National Health Service Corps.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2019

Mr. O'Halleran (for himself and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 
                     National Health Service Corps.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Health Investment, 
Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND NATIONAL 
              HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.

    Section 221 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 
2015 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts 
        appropriated under section 10503(b) of the Patient Protection 
        and Affordable Care Act, there are appropriated to the CHC Fund 
        the following:
                    ``(A) For purposes of paragraph (1) of such 
                section--
                            ``(i) for fiscal year 2020, $4,200,000,000;
                            ``(ii) for fiscal year 2021, 
                        $4,400,000,000;
                            ``(iii) for fiscal year 2022, 
                        $4,600,000,000;
                            ``(iv) for fiscal year 2023, 
                        $4,800,000,000; and
                            ``(v) for fiscal year 2024, $5,000,000,000.
                    ``(B) For purposes of paragraph (2) of such 
                section--
                            ``(i) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2020;
                            ``(ii) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 2021;
                            ``(iii) $355,000,000 for fiscal year 2022;
                            ``(iv) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 2023; 
                        and
                            ``(v) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 2024.''; 
                        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``fiscal year 2016 and 
        fiscal year 2017'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2020, fiscal 
        year 2021, fiscal year 2022, fiscal year 2023, and fiscal year 
        2024''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018427EN.01005001.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)

(Case T-24/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark D-TACK - Earlier national word mark TACK - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Use under a different form - Opposition dismissed - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2018/C 427/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Canusa Capital Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Janet Janes,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ Janet Janes
------------------------------------
Janet Janes
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
December 11, 2008
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 19, 2019

v No. 341504

Manistee Circuit Court SAMUEL DARNEL HARPER, LC No. 17

- 004727

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: S TEPHENS

, P .J., and G LEICHER and B OONSTRA , JJ.

B OONSTRA

, J. ( concurring )

.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, and in its holding that defendant’s sentence was proportionate and reasonable. I write separately only to reiterate my belief that the language of “departure” sentences and the “extent of the departure” from our pre

- Lockridge caselaw is of questionable continuing utility after Lockridge and its progeny, for the reasons s et for in my concurring opinion in People v Lampe , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket

No. 342325) ( B OONSTRA

, J., concurring).

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05315-AKH Document 29 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018072EN.01003602.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — SE v Council

(Case T-231/17) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Article 2(2), third sentence, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Concept of ‘child whom the official has a responsibility to maintain under a judicial decision based on Member States’ legislation on the protection of minors’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to the granddaughter of the official))

(2018/C 072/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Council’s decision of 22 June 2016, by which the appointing authority of that institution refused to recognise that the applicant’s granddaughter was a ‘dependent child’ of the applicant within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.

1

---