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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1132 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1132

   To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of 
  Defense to jointly ensure that the Vet Centers of the Department of 
  Veterans Affairs have access to the Defense Personnel Record Image 
    Retrieval system and the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense 
                      Identity Repository system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2013

   Mr. Denham (for himself and Mr. Roe of Tennessee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of 
  Defense to jointly ensure that the Vet Centers of the Department of 
  Veterans Affairs have access to the Defense Personnel Record Image 
    Retrieval system and the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense 
                      Identity Repository system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Efficient Service for Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. VET CENTER ACCESS TO DEFENSE PERSONNEL RECORD IMAGE RETRIEVAL 
              SYSTEM AND VETERANS AFFAIRS/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
              IDENTITY REPOSITORY SYSTEM.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense 
shall jointly ensure that each center established under section 1712A 
of title 38, United States Code, has access to--
            (1) the Defense Personnel Record Image Retrieval system; 
        and
            (2) the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Identity 
        Repository system.
                                 <all>
```
Robert G. PULLEY, Petitioner v. Daniel PARAMO, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6467

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Modigene Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve Schaeffer, the
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
      knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(4)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                Steve SchaefferSteve
                SchaefferPrincipal
                Financial OfficerModigene
                Inc.




May
      12,
      2008
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018359EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 359/06)

1.

On 28 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018359EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Jin Jiang International Holdings Co., Ltd (‘Jin Jiang’, China), a State-owned company, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Radisson Holdings, Inc. (United States of America) and Radisson Hospitality AB (Sweden) (together ‘Radisson’). |

Jin Jiang acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Radisson.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Jin Jiang: a hospitality and travel group that develops and manages hotels in China and the rest of the world. Jin Jiang operates a wide range of hotels, under the brands J.Hotel, Jin Jiang, Metropolo, Jin Jiang Inn, the series of brands under Groupe du Louvre, the series of brands under Plateno Group and the series of brands under Vienna Hotel,

—   for Radisson: an operator of a range of hotel brands with a focus on the luxury, upper upscale, upscale and upper midscale segments. In the EEA, these brands include Radisson Collection, Radisson Blu, Radisson, Radisson Red, Park Plaza, Park Inn by Radisson.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9099 — Jin Jiang/Radisson

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018359EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3964 — Berkshire Hathaway/MEHC)

(2005/C 270/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 October 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF COMMITMENT



 




Exhibit 10.8c




Charter Communications VII, LLC

CCO Holdings, LLC

12405 Powerscourt Drive

St. Louis, Missouri 63131-3674




November 14, 2003



Vulcan Inc.

505 Union Station

505 Fifth Avenue South

Suite 900

Seattle, Washington 98104




Re: Notice of Termination of Commitment



Ladies and Gentlemen:



This Notice is being delivered pursuant to the provision captioned “Call
Protection; Optional Prepayment” of the Term Sheet (the “Term Sheet”), attached
as Exhibit A to the commitment letter dated as of April 14, 2003, as amended
June 30, 2003 (as so amended, the “Commitment Letter”), by and among Vulcan,
Inc., Charter Communications VII, LLC and CCO Holdings, LLC. Terms defined in
the Term Sheet and used without other definition herein shall have the
respective meanings herein assigned to such terms in the
Term Sheet.



We hereby notify you that, since no Loans or Letters of Credit are outstanding,
we are terminating the Commitment and the Facility in accordance with the terms
thereof, effective as of the date hereof.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS VII, LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
By:
	 	/s/ Curt Shaw	 	 
	 	 	 	 	
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
Its:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CCO HOLDINGS, LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
By:
	 	/s/ Curt Shaw	 	 
	 	 	 	 	
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
Its:
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1071 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1071

 To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in 
  the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative 
                                 coins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2013

   Mr. Hanna (for himself, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Gibson) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in 
  the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative 
                                 coins.

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

SECTION 1. SIZE OF PRECIOUS-METAL BLANKS.

    Section 3(a) of the National Baseball Hall of Fame Commemorative 
Coin Act (Public Law 112-152) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``have'' and inserting 
        ``be struck on a planchet having a''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``have a'' and 
        inserting ``be struck on a planchet having a''.
                                 <all>
```
**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

| Date:                  May 14, 2008 | By: /s/                  David                  A. Gillespie |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | David                  A. Gillespie                               |
|                                | President                  and Chief Executive Officer            |
|                                |                                                              |

----
Eric MASSEY, Petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 19-5703

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atomic  Paintball,  Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  David J.  Cutler,  Chief
Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 19, 2009



By:      /s/ David J. Cutler
         ----------------------------------
         David J. Cutler
         Chief Executive Officer, principal financial officer
Michael M. MOLINARO, Petitioner v. Bertha A. MOLINARO.

No. 19-6083

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

*570Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3787ND

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District of

v. * North Dakota.

*

Darryl Lawrence Thompson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 21, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Lawrence Thompson appeals his guidelines sentence. Because the

controlling law is clear, an extended discussion of the issue raised on appeal will serve

no useful purpose. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we reject

Thompson's contention that the district court improperly refused to grant Thompson a

two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. In our view, the district court's

findings are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. We thus affirm

Thompson's sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2018057EN.01000102.xml

| 15.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8760 — EPH/Mátrai Erőmű)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 57/02)

On 9 February 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8760. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8760. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Menes ANKH-EL, aka Wendell Brown, Petitioner, v. Robert CARTER, et al.

No. 19-8152.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Charles Raymond STAGNER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6341

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1141 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 

any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-oftime arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. WITTMAN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GRIJALVA, and 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that any hours worked by Federal firefighters 

under a qualified trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

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 ‘‘Federal Firefighter 

5 Flexibility and Fairness Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1141 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A QUALI2 FIED TRADE-OF-TIME ARRANGEMENT. 

3 Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section, any hours worked by a firefighter under a quali7 fied trade-of-time arrangement shall be disregarded for 

8 purposes of any determination relating to eligibility for, 

9 or the amount of, any overtime pay under this section. 

10 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this section— 

11 ‘‘(A) the term ‘qualified trade-of-time arrange12 ment’ means an arrangement under which 2 fire13 fighters who are employed by the same agency 

14 agree, solely at their option and with the approval 

15 of their employing agency, to substitute for one an16 other during scheduled work hours in the perform17 ance of work in the same capacity; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the term ‘firefighter’ means a firefighter 

19 as defined by section 8331(21) or 8401(14).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Karlynn Romeo TONES, Donta Lyvoid Blackmon, and Arvin Terrill Carmen, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9806

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2018210EN.01000201.xml

| 18.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8888 — Apollo Management/Cyprus Cooperative Bank/Altamira Cyprus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 210/03)

On 8 May 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8888. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8888. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Thomas CASCIO, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5251

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K ’ NAPP, AKA Eric C.R. K ’ napp,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16959

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00742

- KJM

CMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019 **

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eric Charles Rodney K’napp, aka Eric C.R. K’napp
, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

questions of con stitutional standing. Maya v. Centex Corp ., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16959

(9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Kwan v.

SanMedica Int’l , 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed K’napp’s action on the ground that

K’napp lacked constitutional standing because K’napp failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that the threat to terminate K’napp’s single

- cell accommodation

resulted in a concrete and particularized injury to K’napp

. See Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560

- 61 (1992) (setting forth elements of Article III
standing); Krottner v. Starbucks Corp ., 628 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2010)

( explaining that a “credible th reat” of future harm may confer Article III standing
if it is “both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted) ).

T o the extent that K’napp attempted to state claims for damages under the

Americans with Disabilities Act or the Re habilitation Act on the basis of past

events, t h e dismissal of these claims was proper because K’napp’s complaint did
not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a short a nd plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne , 84 F.3d

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a complaint must set forth simple,
concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs
for which wrongs”)

.3 18

- 16959

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying K’napp’s motion for

reconsideration b ecause K’napp failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, In c., 5 F.3d 1 255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) ).

AFFIRMED.
Roland Michael SIMON, Petitioner v. CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 19-6026

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.