alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017026EN.01000501.xml

| 26.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/5

---

Commission communication concerning the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European air traffic management network (1)

1

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 26/03)

| Organisation | Reference and title of the Community specification | Reference of superseded Community specification | Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded Community specification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ETSI (2) | EN 303 213-1 V1.4.1
  Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS); Part 1: Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation EC (No) 552/2004 for A-SMGCS Level 1 including external interfaces | EN 303 213-1 V1.3.1 | 1 September 2017 |
| ETSI | EN 303 213-2 V1.4.1
  Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS); Part 2: Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation EC (No) 552/2004 for A-SMGCS Level 2 including external interfaces | EN 303 213-2 V1.3.1 | 1 September 2017 |

Organisation

Reference and title of the Community specification

Reference of superseded Community specification

Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded Community specification

ETSI (2)

2

EN 303 213-1 V1.4.1

Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS); Part 1: Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation EC (No) 552/2004 for A-SMGCS Level 1 including external interfaces

EN 303 213-1 V1.3.1

1 September 2017

ETSI

EN 303 213-2 V1.4.1

Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS); Part 2: Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation EC (No) 552/2004 for A-SMGCS Level 2 including external interfaces

EN 303 213-2 V1.3.1

1 September 2017

---

(1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26.

1

(2)  European Telecommunications Standards Institute: 650 route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, tel. +33 492944200, fax +33 493654716, http://www.etsi.org

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 50 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 50

 Designating a National Railroad Monument located in Diamond District 
Park in historic downtown Durand, Michigan, as the ``National Railroad 
                              Memorial''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

   Mr. Camp submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Designating a National Railroad Monument located in Diamond District 
Park in historic downtown Durand, Michigan, as the ``National Railroad 
                              Memorial''.

Whereas the National Railroad Memorial in Durand, Michigan, is organized as an 
        incorporated, not-for-profit organization in the State of Michigan, and 
        is devoted to inspiring national recognition of the men and women of the 
        railroad industry who helped build and develop the United States of 
        America;
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial has as its mission: To honor the men and 
        women of the railroad industry by educating the public as to the 
        importance of their roles in our Nation's past, present, and future;
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial is an idea originally conceived by 
        William Taylor, Jr., of Niles, Michigan, to honor the men and women of 
        the railroad industry;
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial is a centerpiece of Diamond District 
        Park, located at the historic crossroads of three major railroads and 
        one of the largest surviving train stations in the United States;
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial is intended to encompass the statuary, 
        structures, and historic railroad equipment located in historic Durand, 
        Michigan;
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial is designed to be a destination 
        attraction, located in the middle of the spectacular Great Lakes region, 
        for visitors from all over the world; and
Whereas the National Railroad Memorial Inc., in conjunction with the Michigan 
        Railroad History Museum and the Steam Railroading Institute, seeks to 
        educate a diverse audience through exceptional exhibits, that provide 
        educational programing for adults and children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that a National Railroad Monument 
located in Diamond District Park in historic downtown Durand, Michigan, 
be designated as the ``National Railroad Memorial''.
                                 <all>
```
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/13/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       38,053
COMMITMENTS
   3,504    8,312    1,502   21,302   15,959   26,308   25,773   11,745   12,280

CHANGES FROM 08/06/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        705)
     109     -258      488     -289     -198      309       32      396      673

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.2     21.8      3.9     56.0     41.9     69.1     67.7     30.9     32.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       58)
       9       13       10       30       24       42       45
```

----

Updated August 16, 2013
Valery VINAROV, Petitioner, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

No. 19-8001.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
# C_2017431EN.01000801.xml

| 15.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/8

---

Update of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (codification) (1)

1

(2017/C 431/05)

The publication of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

CZECH REPUBLIC

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247, 13.10.2006

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247, 13.10.2006

The national service responsible for border controls: Ředitelství služby cizinecké policie, celní správa (Directorate of Alien Police Service, Customs).

List of previous publications

List of previous publications

| | OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17.

| | OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 11. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 11.

| | OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 1. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 1.

| | OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 45. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 45.

| | OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 21. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 21.

| | OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 15. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 15.

| | OJ C 87, 1.4.2010, p. 15. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 87, 1.4.2010, p. 15.

| | OJ C 180, 21.6.2012, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 180, 21.6.2012, p. 2.

| | OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 2.

| | OJ C 256, 5.9.2013, p. 14. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 256, 5.9.2013, p. 14.

| | OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 17.

| | OJ C 218, 7.7.2017, p. 19. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 218, 7.7.2017, p. 19.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

1

---
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 44 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 

Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2013 

Ms. NORTON (for herself and Mr. BARLETTA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District 

of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF THE CAPITOL 

4 GROUNDS FOR DC SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW 

5 ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN. 

6 On September 27, 2013, or on such other date as 

7 the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Com8 mittee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may 

9 jointly designate, the 28th Annual District of Columbia 

10 Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 44 IH 

1 resolution referred to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through 

2 the Capitol Grounds to carry the Special Olympics torch 

3 to honor local Special Olympics athletes. 

4 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD. 

5 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as 

6 may be necessary to carry out the event. 

7 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA8 TIONS. 

9 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions 

10 for physical preparations for the event. 

11 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

12 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce13 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

14 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise15 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

16 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

17 Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2017189EN.01005401.xml

| 15.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/54

---

Corrigendum to Winding-up proceedings — Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of ADRIA Way

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 123 of 20 April 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 123 of 20 April 2017

(2017/C 189/18)

On page 3, in the title, after ‘Insurance undertaking’ and after ‘Date, entry into force and nature of the decision’:

for:

for:

‘ADRIA Way’,

read:

read:

‘Cestovní pojišťovna ADRIA Way družstvo “v likvidaci”’.

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2019006EN.01001301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 6/13 |

---

Corrigendum to Resolution (EU) 2018/1368 of the European Parliament of 18 April 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2016

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 248 of 3 October 2018](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2018_248_R_TOC)
)

On page 216, paragraph 1:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘1. | Recalls that the Agency is a consolidated entity, in accordance with Article 185 of the Financial Regulation.’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘1. | Recalls that the Agency is a consolidated entity, in accordance with Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, and it is the driving force among regulatory authorities in implementing the Union's chemicals legislation for the benefit of human health and the environment as well as for innovation and competitiveness; notes that the Agency helps companies to comply with the legislation, advances the safe use of chemicals and provides information on chemicals and addresses chemicals of concern;’. |

---
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/28/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      517,929
COMMITMENTS
 101,954   41,382  119,290  277,646  335,489  498,890  496,161   19,039   21,768

CHANGES FROM 05/21/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -14,448)
    -671    6,455  -14,675     -693   -8,193  -16,039  -16,413    1,591    1,965

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    19.7      8.0     23.0     53.6     64.8     96.3     95.8      3.7      4.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      154)
      42       44       62       61       63      133      141
```

----

Updated May 31, 2013
AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint

United States District Court

for the

Eastern District of Texas

United States of America

v.

GHAITH ALAGELE

Defendant(s)

)

)

) Case No.

) 4:24-MJ-027

)

)

)

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

On or about the date(s) of JANUARY 10, 2024 in the county of DENTON in the

Eastern District of Texas , the defendant(s) violated:

Code Section Offe se Descriptio 

18 U.S.C. 932(b) Straw Purchasing of firearms

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

See attached Affidavit.

Continued on the attache sheet.

Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.

Date: 01/17/2024

City and state: Plano, Texas Kimberly C. Priest Johnson, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Printed ame a d title

Case 4:24-mj-00027-KPJ Document 1 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ASUS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING 

INC., et al,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

AT&T CORP., et al,

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00486-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Expedite Briefing on their Motion to Lift 

Stay. Dkt. No. 330. Plaintiffs argue that “[e]xpedited briefing on the motion to lift the stay is 

necessary because Defendants have made it clear they plan to use the present stay to impose 

significant delays on the entire infringement case for purely tactical purposes.” Id. at 1. For

example, Defendants are refusing to agree to schedule depositions,” even though Plaintiffs have 

announced they are dismissing some of the claims in the anti-trust case. Id. at 1, 2. Plaintiffs claim 

that they are doing “everything they can to keep this case on track,” including filing their claim 

construction briefs. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs’ arguments are misplaced. 

As the Court explained in its Order staying the case, Plaintiffs have clearly not done 

“everything they can to keep this case on track.” See Dkt. No. 328. The Court understands that 

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion in the Antitrust case, purporting to dismiss “with prejudice all claims 

that are subject to the pending Motion to Dismiss in that action, including the antitrust claims, 

tortious interference claims, and unfair competition claims.” Dkt. No. 329 at 1. At this time, the 

Court cannot accept Plaintiffs’ representations about the effect of their motion without 

considering the briefing and argument from the Defendants. 

Case 2:23-cv-00486-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

10328
2 / 2 

The Court reminds Plaintiffs that the case is stayed pending further order of the Court, not 

when Plaintiffs unilaterally decide that the stay should be lifted. Dkt. No. 328. Defendants are 

acting appropriately in not scheduling depositions while the case is stayed. 

Defendants are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to brief their positions and not be 

required to brief this important issue on an expedited schedule. The Court will hear oral 

argument about lifting the stay. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. 

It is ORDERED that the briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt. No. 329) 

will proceed according to the deadlines provided in the Local Rules. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties appear for oral argument on Dkt. No. 329 

on January 23, 2025 at 1:30 pm. 

Case 2:23-cv-00486-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

10329
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

PHILLIP WESLEY BASS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23cv209

DIRECTOR, TDC-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Phillip Wesley Bass, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the

Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

 Procedural Background

The court previously entered an order directing petitioner to either pay the $5 filing fee or

submit a properly certified application to proceed in forma pauperis showing deposits into his

inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Petitioner was given 20 days to comply

with the court’s order. The time for complying with the order has expired. However, petitioner has

not complied with the court’s order or otherwise contacted the court. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v.

Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

Case 9:23-cv-00209-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16
By failing to comply with the order described above, petitioner has failed to diligently

prosecute this petition for writ of habeas corpus. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want

of prosecution.

Recommendation

This petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice for want of

prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 26th day of March, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00209-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 20-410C (Filed: April 14, 2020) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IRA JEROME ROSS,
Pro Se Plaintiff,

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pro Se; Prison Litigation Reform Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Three-Strikes Bar

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS On March 31, 2020 , Ira Jerome Ross, a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated in Kinder, Louisiana, filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in thi s court, asserting he has suffered damages due to the Department of Justice’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s failure to follow up on a criminal complaint he filed against Warner Brothers Corporation. Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1. Mr. Ross seeks $50 million in damages based on alleged violations of his E qual Protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Compl. at 3. He also seeks an order that the United States Attorney’s Office settle this case and pay the filing fee for his lawsuit “due to the coronavirus.” Id. at 5. This court has previously determined that, while incarcerated , Mr. Ross has filed at least three complaints that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious , or for failure to state a claim, and that Mr. Ross is therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Ross v. United States , No. 19-1175 (order dated Sept. 4, 2019) (listing cases); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Although Mr. Ross argues in his complaint that he should not pay the filing fee “due to the coronavirus,” Compl. at 5, Mr. Ross has not shown that this bare allegation satisfies the “imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes bar. See Fourstar v. United2 States , 950 F.3d 856, 859-60 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (requiring a nexus between the complaint’s claims and the allegations of imminent danger). For these reasons, Mr. Ross’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2, is DENIED . Mr. Ross is ORDERED to pay the filing fee by May 13, 2020. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See RCFC 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED

. /s Nancy B. Firestone NANCY B. FIRESTONE Senior Judge
Ilana RIGWAN, Petitioner, v. Jordan Lee NEUS.

and Ilana Rigwan, Petitioner, v. Jordon Lee Neus, et al.; and

No. 19-6695.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.