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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2382 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2382

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that 
the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2019

  Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Ms. Torres 
Small of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that 
the United States Postal Service prepay future retirement benefits, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``USPS Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIRED PREPAYMENT OF FUTURE POSTAL SERVICE 
              RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

    Subsection (d) of section 8909a of title 5, United States Code, is 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Appellant, and International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 2028, Respondent.

Submitted January 4, 2010;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that dismissed the appeal from Supreme Court’s December 2008 order, dismissed upon the ground that appellant is not a party aggrieved *(see*CPLR 5511); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order that dismissed the appeal from Supreme Court’s January 2009 order, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
# C_2019139EN.01001801.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Detlef Meyn

(Case C-9/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal to recognise a driving licence issued in another Member State - Right to drive established on the basis of a driving licence)

(2019/C 139/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

Party in the main proceedings

Detlef Meyn

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence — the holder of which has his normal residence in its territory — which has been issued by another Member State, without a test of fitness to drive, on the basis of a driving licence issued by another Member State, for its part based on the exchange of a driving licence issued by a third country.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FOREST GUARDIANS; CARSON

FOREST WATCH,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 06-2306

(D.Ct. No. 05-CIV-372-JB/DJS)

ORDER

Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TACHA, KELLY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY,

HARTZ, O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the appellants’ Petition For Panel Or En Banc

Rehearing. We also have a response from the United States Forest Service. Both the petition

and response were circulated to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active

service. A poll was called, and a majority voted to grant rehearing an banc. Consequently,

the appellants’ petition is GRANTED.

On or before April 23, 2010, the appellants shall file a supplemental brief, limited to

20 pages in length in a 13 point font, addressing the issues raised and arguments addressed
-2-

in Section II B of the majority opinion issued on August 26, 2009, and the dissent which

accompanied that decision. On or before Friday June 4, 2010, the Forest Service shall file

a supplemental response addressing the same issues. The appellants may submit an optional

reply, limited to 10 pages in length, within 10 days of service of the response brief.

All of the supplemental briefs shall be filed using the court’s Electronic Case Filing

system. In addition, within 2 business days of the ECF filing, 15 hard copies of the briefs

must be received in the clerk’s office. We also direct both parties to submit an additional 10

hard copies of their original merits briefs at the time the hard copies of the supplemental

briefs are submitted. 

This matter will be heard on the court’s September 2010 argument calendar. That

calendar is currently set for the week of September 20, 2010. The parties will be advised of

the exact day and time for the argument when the calendar is finalized. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of Nuvilex, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the period ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert F. Ryan, 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

 

By: /s/ Robert F. RyanRobert F. Ryan Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer On behalf of the Registrant)

Date: April 26, 2011

 

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of Nuvilex, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the period ending April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patricia Gruden, Interim 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

By: /s/ Patricia GrudenPatricia Gruden, Interim Chief Financial Officer 

(Interim Principal Financial Officer)

Date: April 26, 2011**
##### 



EXHIBIT 15 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Peter Meredith, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 40-F of
Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report. Date:
    
    June 21, 2004By:
    
    Peter MeredithPeter Meredith
Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cr-00481-PAC     Document 33      Filed 07/18/2008     Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1599
RODNEY L. CHERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF WILSON; WILSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; D. H. GARRIS, Officer; S. L. GARDNER, Officer; WILLIE WILLIAMS, Chief, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-1674
RODNEY L. CHERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DORIS JONES, National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-43-4-H, CA-01-44-4-H) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney L. Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Rodney L. Cherry appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil actions as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions which have been consolidated on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Cherry v. City of Wilson , No. CA-01-43-4-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2001); Cherry v. Jones , No. CA-01-44-4-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2001). To the extent it is unclear, we note that the court’s dismissals are to be without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1996). Cherry’s “motion for remand” is denied. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Ngoyi Paul Ngoyi, an Attorney, Appellant. Committee on Professional Standards, Respondent.

Decided April 6, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
AFH Holding IV, Inc. 10-Q








Exhibit 32.1








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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFH Holding IV, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, I, Amir F. Heshmatpour, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, 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 quarter ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: August 13, 2010
 
 /s/ Amir F. HeshmatpourAmir F. HeshmatpourPresident, Secretary and Sole Director(Principal Executive Officer)

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2020390EN.01002702.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-420/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)

(2020/C 390/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind and F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: P. Messina and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo and T. Klupsch, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Single Resolution Board in its executive session of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05) in so far as it concerns Portigon AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05) in so far as it concerns Portigon AG;

| 2. | Orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Portigon; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Portigon;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.

---
# C_2017231EN.01004102.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/41

---

Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission

(Case T-292/17)

(2017/C 231/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Région Île-de-France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission refused to classify the support scheme for the region as existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission refused to classify the support scheme for the region as existing aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. This plea is divided into two parts:






  — | First part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of selectivity. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. This plea is divided into two parts:

—

First part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of selectivity.

| — | Second part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of undue economic advantage. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of undue economic advantage.

---
# C_2019399EN.01004202.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Application for access submitted by a former judge of the General Court - Partial refusal of access - Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

(2019/C 399/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 and 22 May 2017 rejecting the applications for access to certain documents, submitted by the applicant on 27 January 2017 and 14 December 2016 respectively, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Court of Justice of the European Union when it refused to grant his applications for access to information, submitted between 15 July and 10 August 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 18 May 2017 which rejected the second confirmatory application for access to certain documents made by Mr Franklin Dehousse, to the extent that that decision refused access to ‘exchanges, in both directions, between President Skouris, or his Head of Cabinet, and all German public authorities between 2011 and 2015 inclusive’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PARIS CHERER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-15607

D.C. Nos. 2:05-cr-00325-JCM

 2:08-cv-01644-JCM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Paris Cherer appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial

FILED

OCT 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-15607

of a section 2255 motion de novo, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204,

1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Cherer contends that he was denied due process because he was forced to

stand trial when he was incompetent. We disagree. The record supports the

district court’s determination that, at the time of trial, Cherer had “a rational as well

as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” and the “ability to consult

with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Indiana v.

Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 170 (2008) (emphasis and quotations omitted).

Cherer also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

investigate Cherer’s mental competency, failing to investigate records that could

have provided exculpatory evidence, and failing to prepare an adequate defense. 

Cherer further contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to

raise these claims on appeal. The district court properly denied relief as to these

claims because Cherer has not demonstrated either deficient performance by

counsel or prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Contrary to Cherer’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying his section 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Roberts v.

Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 773 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         June 13, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         1:30 pm to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anthony Macaluso, Scientific Review Administrator, NIAID/DEA, Scientific Review Program, Room 2217, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-7465,                         *amacauso@niaid.nih.gov*

      ( print page 28920)    
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 18, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13200  Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M