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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2471 

To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as ‘‘Compound 

1080’’) and sodium cyanide for predator control. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. NORTON, Ms. 

BONAMICI, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. TED LIEU of California) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate 

(known as ‘‘Compound 1080’’) and sodium cyanide for 

predator control. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chemical Poisons Re5 duction Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘Canyon’s Law’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 The purpose of this Act is to restrict the use of the 

8 poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as ‘‘Compound 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2471 IH

1 1080’’) and sodium cyanide to kill predatory animals given 

2 the risks posed by such poisons to— 

3 (1) public safety; 

4 (2) national security; 

5 (3) the environment; and 

6 (4) persons and other animals that come into 

7 accidental contact with such poisons. 

8 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN POISONS FOR 

9 PREDATOR CONTROL. 

10 (a) PROHIBITED ACT.—Sodium fluoroacetate (known 

11 as ‘‘Compound 1080’’) and sodium cyanide may not be 

12 used in a predator control device. 

13 (b) PENALTY.—Whoever uses sodium fluoroacetate 

14 or sodium cyanide in a predator control device shall be 

15 fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned 

16 not more than 2 years, or both. 

17 (c) PREDATOR CONTROL DEVICE DEFINED.—In this 

18 section, the term ‘‘predator control device’’ means— 

19 (1) a dispenser designed to propel sodium 

20 fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when activated by 

21 an animal; 

22 (2) a livestock protection collar designed to re23 lease sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when 

24 punctured by an animal; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2471 IH

1 (3) a gas cartridge or other pyrotechnic device 

2 designed to emit sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cy3 anide fumes; and 

4 (4) any other means of dispensing sodium 

5 fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide, including in the 

6 form of capsules, for wildlife management or other 

7 animal control purposes. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
144 So. 869

#### ROBINSON v. STATE.

1 Div. 732.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 15, 1932.

E. G. Rickarby, Jr., of Mobile, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOULDIN, J.

Clarence Robinson, alias Texas Slim, was convicted of murder in the first degree, for the killing of Max Moore, alias Max Crow, and his punishment fixed at death.

The appeal is upon the record only. There is no bill of exceptions, and, therefore, no questions for review on the main trial, nor on the motion for a new trial, other than such as appear from the record, and not required to appear by bill of exceptions.

Review of the evidence on motion for new trial can be had only on bill of exceptions. Code, § 6088; Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 So. 393.

We have fully examined the record.. It discloses indictment, arraignment, trial, verdict, judgment, and sentence, all in due form of law.

The presence of defendant in person and by counsel at all proceedings after return of indictment is affirmatively shown.

Finding no error, let the judgment and sentence stand affirmed.

The day fixed by the trial court for the execution of the death sentence having passed, it is the order and judgment of this court that Friday, the 3d day of February, 1933, be and is hereby fixed as the day and date for the execution of such sentence in all respects as required by law and the orders of the trial court.

Affirmed.

All the Justices, concur.
#### STATE v. QUALLS

No. 331A98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 1

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 8 October 1998.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2418 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Mr. NEAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. E–3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the 

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, on a 

7 basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 

8 State, a national of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’. 

9 (b) EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.—Section 212 of the 

10 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 

11 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2418 IH

1 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) 

2 (as added by section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108– 

3 449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as subsection (u); and 

4 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) 

5 (as added by section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108– 

6 77 (117 Stat. 941)) the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) In the case of an attestation filed with re8 spect to a national of Ireland described in section 

9 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), the employer is, and will remain 

10 during the period of authorized employment of such 

11 Irish national, a participant in good standing in the 

12 E-Verify program described in section 403(a) of the 

13 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon14 sibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### George SPANN, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 05-2633.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 14, 2006.

Filed: June 19, 2006.

George Spann, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.

Sherri L. Robinson, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

George Spann appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII employment-discrimination suit against his former employer, Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (AFDA). Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Kincaid v. City of Omaha,*378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Spann failed to establish that AFDA’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse actions taken against Spann— continued performance deficiencies — were pretextual. *See Gilooly v. Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs.,*421 F.3d 734, 739 (8th Cir.2005) (burden-shifting analysis). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 32



Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant
to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Furnished but not
filed)



In connection with this quarterly report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Joseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees and Chief Executive Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify that:



1. This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|Date | July 25, 2006 |  | By | /s/  Joseph S. Micallef                                                     
|---- | ------------- |  | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |               |  |    | Joseph S. Micallef, President of the Trustees and
   Chief Executive Officer





In connection with this quarterly report of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Thomas A. Janochoski, Vice President & Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, certify that:



1. This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and will be retained by Great Northern Iron Ore Properties and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|Date | July 25, 2006 |  | By | /s/  Thomas A. Janochoski                                                   
|---- | ------------- |  | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |               |  |    | Thomas A. Janochoski, Vice President &
Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129642 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129642 COA: 260023 Wayne CC: 87-002617 DASHEA GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2006

Clerk
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2243 

To exempt health insurance of residents of United States territories from 

the annual fee on health insurance providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico (for herself, Ms. PLASKETT, Mrs. 

RADEWAGEN, and Mr. SAN NICOLAS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To exempt health insurance of residents of United States 

territories from the annual fee on health insurance providers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Territory Health In5 surance Tax Relief Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2243 IH

1 SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE OF RESIDENTS OF UNITED 

2 STATES TERRITORIES EXEMPT FROM AN3 NUAL FEE ON HEALTH INSURANCE PRO4 VIDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9010(b) of the Patient 

6 Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE OF

9 RESIDENTS OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Solely for purposes of 

11 paragraph (1)(A), the term ‘United States 

12 health risk’ shall not include the health risk of 

13 any individual who is a bona fide resident of 

14 Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana 

15 Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands (as 

16 determined under section 937(a)). 

17 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION NOT TO INCREASE FEE

18 ALLOCATION.—The amount determined under 

19 paragraph (1)(B) shall be determined without 

20 regard to subparagraph (A) of this para21 graph.’’. 

22 (b) REPORTING.—Section 9010(g)(1) of the Patient 

23 Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by insert24 ing ‘‘(and the amount of such net premiums to which sub25 section (b)(4)(A) applies)’’ before the period at the end. 

26 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2243 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to calendar years beginning 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

4 (2) TRANSITIONAL RULE FOR REPORTING.— 

5 For purposes of applying the amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) with respect to the first calendar year 

7 beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

8 Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Sec9 retary’s designee) shall provide a method for covered 

10 entities to report the information described in the 

11 amendment made by subsection (b) for the calendar 

12 year which precedes such first calendar year. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2021462EN.01000701.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, GM v Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

(Case C-605/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Securities admitted to trading on a regulated market situated or operating within a Member State - Transparency requirement - Notification of ‘major holdings’ acquired in companies by ‘persons acting in concert’ - Directive 2004/109/EC - Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph - Concept of ‘more stringent requirements’ - Directive 2004/25/EC - ‘Supervision’ by an authority appointed pursuant to Article 4 of that directive)

(2021/C 462/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adler Real Estate AG, Petrus Advisers LLP, GM

Defendant: Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1a), fourth subparagraph, (iii), of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, first, makes shareholders, or natural persons or legal entities referred to in Article 10 or 13 of Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, subject to requirements relating to notification of major holdings that are more stringent, within the meaning of that fourth subparagraph, than those provided for in Directive 2004/109, as amended by Directive 2013/50, and those more stringent requirements result from laws, regulations or administrative provisions adopted in relation, inter alia, to takeover bids; and, secondly, does not assign the power to ensure compliance with such requirements to an authority of that Member State appointed pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1  I, Bill Akrivos, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Startale Group, Inc. (the Registrant); 2. 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; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 14, 2008 /s/ Bill Akrivos Bill Akrivos, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28546-28547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13037]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Multiservice Switching Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 4, 2001, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Multiservice Switching Forum 
(``MSF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the

[[Page 28547]]

Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Anda Networks, San 
Jose, CA; Armillaire Technologies, Bethesda, MD; Nahi Networks, 
Petaluma, CA; Telica, Marlboro, MA; University of New Hampshire, 
Durham, NH; and Vocal Data, Richardson, TX have been added as parties 
to this venture. Also, 2nd Century Communications, Tampa, FL; 3COM, 
Santa Clara, CA; ADC Telecommunications, Richardson, TX; BellSouth, 
Atlanta, GA; CopperCom, Santa Clara, CA; Hitachi Telecom, Tokyo, JAPAN; 
NetPlane, Dedham, MA; PairGain, Tustin, CA; Telefonica de Espana, 
Madrid, SPAIN; Telia, Stockholm, SWEDEN; Tellabs, Lisle, IL; Vivace 
Networks, San Jose, CA; and Xbind, New York, NY have been dropped as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MSF intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 22, 1999, MSF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28519).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 8, 
2001. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17202).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13037 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ROCHA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-41085

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 30, 2013.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raising two claims of error that he concedes are foreclosed, Alberto Rocha-Martinez appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

In his first claim, Rocha-Martinez contends that the district court erred by *341assessing a 16-level “drug trafficking” enhancement under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i), based on his prior federal conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. He argues that a conspiracy conviction such as his prior conviction, which has been obtained pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not require proof of an overt act and thus does not meet the generic, contemporary definition of conspiracy for purposes of applying the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement. As the parties concede, this issue is foreclosed by *United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno,*700 F.3d 751, 753-55 (5th Cir.2012), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2044, 185 L.Ed.2d 902, 2013 WL 1313840 (Apr. 29, 2013) (No. 12-9483).

In his second claim, Rocha-Martinez contends that the district court erred in not awarding an additional one-level reduction of his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under United States Sentencing Guideline § 3El.l(b) when the Government declined to move for the reduction after he refused to sign a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. As the parties concede, this issue is likewise foreclosed. *See United States v. Newson,*515 F.3d 374, 376-79 (5th Cir.2008).

In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.