alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 1721 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 18, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

1722) to require the head of each executive agency to establish and implement a policy under which employees shall be 

authorized to telework, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those arising 

under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair 

of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or 

his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. 

The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of November 19, 2010, for the Speaker to enter-
2 

•HRES 1721 EH 

tain motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker 

or her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 

designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 

pursuant to this section. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# C_2011238EN.01001604.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/16

---

Order of the General Court of 21 June 2011 — Rosenbaum v Commission

(Case T-452/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Taking account of the professional experience of the person concerned - Article 31 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 238/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and E. Eggers, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieléskiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission, judgment of 10 September 2009, not published in the ECR, asking for that judgment to be set aside.

Rosenbaum

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Mr Eckehard Rosenbaum to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Eckehard Rosenbaum to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
Taajwarr O. HIVES, petitioner, v. BISK EDUCATION, INC.

No. 17-6188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2009 – Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging
Utrecht v Commission**

**(Case T-396/09 R)**

Interim measures – Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality – Exemption granted to a Member State – Commission’s refusal to review – Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant
in obtaining the suspension – Negative administrative decision – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position
– Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 34-35)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Link of the measure sought to the pleadings in the main
action – Provisional character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras
36-39)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Measure incompatible with the distribution of powers between institutions
– Application seeking to enjoin the Commission to apply a possible annulment judgment in the main action in a particular way
– Inadmissibility (Arts 266 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 41-42)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION (i) for suspension of operation of Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009 declaring inadmissible the applicants’ request for review by the Commission of its Decision C(2009) 2560 final of 7 April 2009 granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from its obligations in combating ambient air pollution; and (ii) for interim measures requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to comply with those obligations at the earliest opportunity. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Costs are reserved. |
Filed 10/23/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 214

Antonio Phillip Stridiron, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20120159

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Steven Balaban, 200 N. Mandan St., Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Sean B. Kasson, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, N.D. 58702-5005, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Stridiron v. State

No. 20120159

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Antonio Stridiron appealed from a trial court order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, Stridiron argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel on five different bases:  (1) counsel failed to file a motion to suppress; (2) counsel denied Stridiron his right to testify; (3) counsel failed to present Stridiron’s version of the case; (4) counsel failed to object to the State’s motion for joinder of the trials; and (5) counsel failed to raise Stridiron’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury.

[¶2]We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7); see Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71, ¶ 12, 764 N.W.2d 419 (stating a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-conviction relief if he fails to provide any competent evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Trent S. GRIFFIN, Sr., petitioner, v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 17M90.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16167]



[[Page 34151]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-601]


Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea: 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova Daly or Paige Rivas at (202) 482-
0989 or (202) 482-0651, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, 
Group II, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to make a 
final determination within 120 days after the date on which the 
preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not 
practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit 
for the final results to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does 
not extend the time limit for the preliminary results) from the date of 
publication of the preliminary results.

Background

    On February 23, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of the 1999 administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 
ware from Korea. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from 
Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review 66 FR 11259 (February 23, 2001).

Extension of Time Limit For Final Determination

    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final 
results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final 
results until no later than August 24, 2001. See Decision Memorandum 
from Holly A. Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated concurrently with this 
notice, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
main Commerce building.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: June 19, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-16167 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2010063EN.01001903.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/19

---

Appeal brought on 24 March 2009 by Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) against the judgment delivered on 13 January 2009 by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-456/08 Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-112/09 P)

2010/C 63/30

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and R. Vallina Hoset, abogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 14 January 2010 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
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 of Secured Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
Day, Chief Financial 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.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Dated: May 20, 2005

                                                    /s/ JOHN G. DAY
                                                    ----------------
                                                    John G. Day
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
Thomas Douglas ARTHUR, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 16-595.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
II-00838

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Matthew Bogosian <mtb 19@columbia.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:57 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Matthew Bogosian

3131 Ocean Ter

Marina, CA 93933
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isaac Ronald SKINNER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30608

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

Duane Evans, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen A. Hig-ginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Autumn Alycia Town, Law Office of Autumn Town, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Isaac Ronald Skinner, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Skinner has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Robert Craig BARBEE, petitioner, v. CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 16-7040.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2009205EN.01005201.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/52

---

Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-159/09

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 153 of 4 July 2009, p. 44
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 153 of 4 July 2009, p. 44

2009/C 205/95

The notice to the OJ in Case T-159/09 Biofrescos v Commission is to be read as follows:

Biofrescos

Commission

‘Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-159/09)

2009/C 193/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães e Menezes, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C (2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C (2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Between September 2003 and February 2005, the applicant imported a number of consignments of frozen prawns from Indonesia, for which it sought remission of import duties pursuant to Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. (1)

The applicant submits that the Commission infringed, at the very least, those provisions in so far as: first, it made no observations on any of the arguments put forward by the applicant in its request for remission of import duties; secondly, the reasons given by the Commission were inadequate, misleading and incomprehensible; thirdly, it misinterpreted the error made by the Indonesian authorities themselves; fourthly and last, the Commission deemed to be proved facts which are not actually proved, the burden of proving which fell, subsequently, to the bodies involved in the procedure and not the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 97, p. 38.’

1

---
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 19 - 00342 - CR No. 10 - 19 - 0034 3 - CR IN RE REGINALD BERNARD HATTON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In combined petitions for writ of mandamus, Reginald Bernard Hatton requests this Court to compel the trial court to modify two judgments in final felony convictions which stack each of Hatton’s sentences. 1 There are numerous procedural problems with Hatton’s petitions, such as no prayer, no certification, no appendix, and no record, as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(i), (j), (k); 52.7. The

1 This new filing is, for all practical purposes, the same as two previously file d petitions for writ of mandamus. See In re Hatton , Nos. 10

- 18

- 00121

- CR, 10

- 18

- 00122

- CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2726 (Tex. App.

— Waco Apr. 18, 2 018 , orig. proceedings )

.In re Hatton Page 2

petitions were also not properly served. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 to dispense with these requirements and proceed to a timely disposition of the petitions. Although the courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction over criminal law matters concurrent with the mandamus jurisdiction of the Texas Court of Criminal
A ppeals, Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals , 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), Hatton has an adequate remedy at law: a post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). And only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings.
T EX
. C OD E C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater , 802 S.W.2d at 243; In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, because Hatton complains about final felony convictions and only
the Court of Crimina l Appeals has jurisdiction regarding Hatton’s complaints, Hatton’s petitions for writ of mandamus are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hatton also presented motions for leave to file his petitions for writ of mandamus. A motion for leave to file a peti tion for writ of mandamus is required when relief is sought from the Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 72.1. But the requirement for leave to file a petition at the court of appeals level was eliminated in 1997. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52, Notes and Comments. Thus, under the applicable rules, if mandamus relief is sought from an intermediate court of appeals, such as the Tenth Court of Appeals, a motion forIn re Hatton Page 3

leave to file the petition is unnecessary. Accordingly, Hatton’s motions for leave to file a
writ of mandamus are dismissed as moot

.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petitions dismissed Motions dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 16 , 2019 Do not publish [OT06]
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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communications Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 25, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         2 pm to 3 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6120 Executive Blvd, Suite 400C, Bethesda, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ali A Azadegan, DVM, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, NIDCD, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, (301) 496-8683.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16351  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M