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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 981 

To limit the use of cluster munitions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. 

MORAN of Virginia, Mr. ELLISON, and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To limit the use of cluster munitions. 

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 ‘‘Cluster Munitions Ci5 vilian Protection Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS. 

7 No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any 

8 Federal department or agency may be obligated or ex9 pended to use any cluster munitions unless— 

10 (1) the submunitions of the cluster munitions, 

11 after arming, do not result in more than 1 percent 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 981 IH

1 unexploded ordnance across the range of intended 

2 operational environments; and 

3 (2) the policy applicable to the use of such clus4 ter munitions specifies that the cluster munitions 

5 will only be used against clearly defined military tar6 gets and will not be used where civilians are known 

7 to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civil8 ians. 

9 SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER. 

10 The President may waive the requirement under sec11 tion 2(1) if, prior to the use of cluster munitions, the 

12 President— 

13 (1) certifies that it is vital to protect the secu14 rity of the United States; and 

15 (2) not later than 30 days after making such 

16 certification, submits to the appropriate congres17 sional committees a report, in classified form if nec18 essary, describing in detail— 

19 (A) the steps that will be taken to protect 

20 civilians; and 

21 (B) the failure rate of the cluster muni22 tions that will be used and whether such muni23 tions are fitted with self-destruct or self-deacti24 vation devices. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 981 IH

1 SEC. 4. CLEANUP PLAN. 

2 Not later than 90 days after any cluster munitions 

3 are used by a Federal department or agency, the President 

4 shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees 

5 a plan, prepared by such Federal department or agency, 

6 for cleaning up any such cluster munitions and submuni7 tions which fail to explode and continue to pose a hazard 

8 to civilians. 

9 SEC. 5. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DE10 FINED. 

11 In this Act, the term ‘‘appropriate congressional com12 mittees’’ means the Committee on Foreign Relations, the 

13 Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Ap14 propriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign 

15 Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Com16 mittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### Arturo LOPEZ GUITIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70078.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 18, 2010.*

Filed Sept. 21, 2010.

*172Mario Acosta, Jr., Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Lopez Guitierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Guitierrez’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed the motion more than ten years after the IJ’s November 14, 1996, order, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and Lopez Guitierrez failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897; *cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.2007) (due diligence where petitioner made “unbroken efforts” to remedy his immigration status).

Lopez Guitierrez also argues that the BIA ignored his request to reopen sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. *See Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 993 n. 8 (9th Cir.2008).

We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez Guitierrez’s contention regarding his underlying removal order because he did not exhaust that contention before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Lopez Guitierrez’s remaining contention is not persuasive.

*173PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Subsidiary Companies of Life Sciences Research, Inc.



       Name                                           Jurisdiction

       Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc             England & Wales
       Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd                   England & Wales
       Huntingdon Life Sciences Inc                   Delaware, USA
       HIH Capital Ltd                                Jersey
       HIH Ltd                                        England & Wales
       HRC Ltd                                        England & Wales
       Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd                 England & Wales
       Huntingdon Consulting Engineers Ltd            England & Wales
       Huntingdon LSR Ltd                             England & Wales
       Paragon Global Services Ltd                    England & Wales
       Pathfinder Protek Ltd                          England & Wales
       Life Science Research Ltd                      England & Wales
       Aquatox Ltd                                    England & Wales
       Huntingdon Life Sciences Co., Ltd              Japan
#### Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, Respondent, v David S. Gould, Cayuga County Sheriff, et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 26, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for renewal granted and, upon renewal, motion by Day Wholesale, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within five days.
# Table

https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-calendar-month_contract_specifications.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-calendar-month_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=8692https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-financial-calendar-month.contractSpecs.htmlhttps://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-calendar-month.contractSpecs.options.html
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 101 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should discontinue the practice of contracting out mail 

delivery services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2009 

Mr. SIRES (for himself, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CHANDLER, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. HOLT, Mr. BRADY of 

Pennsylvania, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. 

MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Ms. 

WOOLSEY, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. HALL of 

New York, and Mr. CARNEY) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should discontinue the 

practice of contracting out mail delivery services. 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

provide mail delivery service to over 144,000,000 homes 

and businesses across the Nation; 

Whereas the contracting out of mail delivery services is being 

increasingly promoted by the Postal Service as a key 

business strategy for its core function; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 101 IH 

Whereas by contracting out letter carrier positions, the Postal 

Service is bypassing the hiring process that ensures that 

only qualified people handle America’s mail; 

Whereas the contracting out of mail delivery services limits 

the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, 

and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal 

uses of the mail; and 

Whereas the protection of our mail delivery services is a vital 

component of our national security: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 discontinue the practice of contracting out mail delivery 

4 services. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA** 

_______________________________ **) ANDRE MAURICE ALLEN, )**  **) Plaintiff, )**  **) v. ) Civil Action No. 13-35 (RWR)**  **) BRICK TRIPP, )**  **) Defendant. )**  **_______________________________)**

**MEMORANDUM ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE** On January 2, 2013, federal prisoner Andre Maurice Allen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The government was ordered to respond to Allen’s motion by March 11, 2013. The government, however, has filed no response to Allen’s motion. On March 25, 2013, Allen moved for entry of a default judgment against the government under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Although the Rules of Civil Procedure apply in habeas corpus proceedings, see Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4), it is improper to issue a default judgment granting a habeas petition, see Bermudez v. Reid , 733 F.2d 18, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Brisbane , 729 F. Supp. 2d 99, 107-08 (D.D.C. 2010). Thus, Allen’s motion for entry of a default judgment will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby- 2 - ORDERED that Allen’s motion [3] for entry of default be, and hereby is, DENIED. Because the government has yet to respond to Allen’s motion, it is further ORDERED that the government show cause in writing by April 16, 2013 why the allegations in Allen’s petition should not be deemed conceded and other appropriate sanctions should not be considered. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this order upon the Chief of the Special Proceedings Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. SIGNED this 2 ndday of April, 2013.

/s/ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge
# CE2012182EN.01004801.xml

| 22.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 182/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 182/48

---

Thursday 3 February 2011Repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas ***I

P7_TA(2011)0036

European Parliament legislative resolution of 3 February 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (COM(2010)0096 – C7-0074/2010 – 2010/0056(COD))

2012/C 182 E/12

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0096), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0096),

| — | having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0074/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0074/2010),

| — | having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0003/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0003/2011),

| 1. | Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---

Thursday 3 February 2011P7_TC1-COD(2010)0056

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 3 February 2011 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 306/2011.)

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lisa Gopalakrishnan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 20, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ LISA GOPALAKRISHNAN
|                        |  |  |  | Lisa Gopalakrishnan    
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HUGHES Telematics, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Vice President Finance and Treasurer 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANNName:

Craig J. KaufmannTitle:

Vice President Finance and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:

August 14, 2009
# CE2012377EN.01025101.xml

| 7.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 377/251 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 377/251

---

Wednesday 11 May 2011Denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation *

P7_TA(2011)0217

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 May 2011 on the proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (codified text) (COM(2010)0691 – C7-0034/2011 – 2010/0338(NLE))

2012/C 377 E/44

(Consultation – codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2010)0691), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2010)0691),

| — | having regard to Article 128(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0034/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 128(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0034/2011),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 86 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 86 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0102/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0102/2011),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Saturday, June 23, 2001, at the Government Office Building, Room 301, 125 N. Division Street, Salisbury, Maryland 21803. The purpose of the meeting is to: (1) Plan future activities, and (2) the Committee will hold a community forum to gather information on civil rights developments from representatives of minority groups and local government in Eastern Shore Maryland counties as part of its project entitled, “Civil Rights Issues in Maryland Small Towns and Rural Areas: Forums in Southern, Eastern Shore, and Western Counties.” 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Chairperson K. Patrick Okura, 301-530-0945, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, May 29, 2001. 

Edward A. Hailes Jr.,

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 01-13827 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P