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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1391 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

25 South Oak Street in London, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Joshua 

B. McDaniels and Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Mr. STIVERS (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. 

JORDAN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. GIBBS, Ms. KAPTUR, 

Mr. TURNER, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. RENACCI, 

and Mr. JOYCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 25 South Oak Street in London, Ohio, as 

the ‘‘Lance Corporal Joshua B. McDaniels and Veterans 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL JOSHUA B. MCDANIELS AND 

4 VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILD5 ING. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

7 Postal Service located at 25 South Oak Street in London, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1391 IH

1 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Cor2 poral Joshua B. McDaniels and Veterans Memorial Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Josh8 ua B. McDaniels and Veterans Memorial Post Office 

9 Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Scott William DUMMERT, Petitioner, v. Renee NGO.

No. 18-9455

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nevada denied.
SMITH BARNEY ALLOCATION SERIES INC.
on behalf of
SELECT INCOME PORTFOLIO AND SELECT CONSERVATIVE PORTFOLIO

Supplement dated March 13, 2001 to
Prospectus dated May 30, 2000


On February 12, 2001, the Board of Directors of Smith Barney
Allocation Series Inc. (formerly known as Smith Barney Concert
Allocation Series Inc.), on behalf of its Select Income Portfolio
and its Select Conservative Portfolio ("Income Portfolio" and
"Conservative Portfolio," respectively), approved a proposed
reorganization pursuant to which its Smith Barney Allocation
Select Balanced Portfolio ("Balanced Portfolio") would acquire
the assets and assume the stated liabilities of the Income
Portfolio and the Conservative Portfolio in exchange for shares
of the Balanced Portfolio.  The reorganization will allow Income
Portfolio and Conservative Portfolio shareholders to maintain an
investment in a fund with similar investment objectives and
investment policies.

Under the terms of the proposed reorganization, Income Portfolio
and Conservative Portfolio shareholders would receive shares of
the Balanced Portfolio equal in value to their investments in the
Income Portfolio and Conservative Portfolio in accordance with
the terms of the reorganization.  Income Portfolio and
Conservative Portfolio shareholders would not be charged a sales
load when Balanced Portfolio shares are issued to them and it is
anticipated that no gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes
would be recognized by shareholders as a result of the
reorganization.

The proposed reorganization is subject to the fulfillment of
certain conditions, including approval by the shareholders of the
Income Portfolio and the Conservative Portfolio.  Proxy materials
describing the proposed reorganization will be mailed to Income
Portfolio and Conservative Portfolio shareholders of record on
March 13, 2001, on or about March 26, 2001, in anticipation of
a meeting of the shareholders expected to be held on April 18,
2001.  If approved by Income Portfolio and Conservative Portfolio
shareholders at that time, the reorganization will occur as soon
after the shareholder meeting as practicable.


FD 02260
August 4, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALVIN WESLEY PRINE JR., Appellant

NO. 14-15-00313-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. We 

have inspected the record and find there was no error in the portion of the 

judgment finding guilt but there was error in the punishment phase of the trial. 

The cause is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial as to 

punishment. The trial court shall commence the new trial as if a finding of guilt 

had been returned and proceed to the punishment stage of the trial. We AFFIRM 

the remainder of the judgment.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Vivek SHAH, Petitioner v. Marcus HOLMES

No. 19-6842

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143514 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143514 

 COA: 300563 

ANTONIO PEREZ-CHICA, Macomb CC: 2005-004731-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2011 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1242 

To prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United States within 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Mr. RIBBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select 

Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the 

Committees on the Judiciary and 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 prohibit the use of drones to kill citizens of the United 

States within the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DRONES. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

5 (1) the term ‘‘drone’’ means an unmanned air6 craft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Mod7 ernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 

8 40101 note)); 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1242 IH

1 (2) the term ‘‘serious bodily injury’’ has the 

2 meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18, 

3 United States Code; and 

4 (3) the term ‘‘United States’’ as used in a terri5 torial sense, has the meaning given that term in sec6 tion 5 of title 18, United States Code. 

7 (b) PROHIBITION.—The Federal Government may 

8 not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who 

9 is located in the United States. The prohibition under this 

10 subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an 

11 imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to an12 other individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed 

13 to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the 

14 killing of a citizen of the United States in the United 

15 States without due process of law. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Official Journal C 125/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.125.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 125 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 561 May 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.125.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 125

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 561 May 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 125/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6754 — KM Holdings/KM Group) (1) | 1 |
| 2013/C 125/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6893 — Carl Zeiss/Carl Zeiss Vision) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 125/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6754 — KM Holdings/KM Group) (1)

1

2013/C 125/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6893 — Carl Zeiss/Carl Zeiss Vision) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 125/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 125/03

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 125/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6894 — Syral China Investment/Wilmar China New Investments/Liaoning Jinxin Biology & Chemistry) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2013/C 125/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6895 — 3G Special Situations Fund III/Berkshire Hathaway/H.J. Heinz Company) (1) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 125/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6894 — Syral China Investment/Wilmar China New Investments/Liaoning Jinxin Biology & Chemistry) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2013/C 125/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6895 — 3G Special Situations Fund III/Berkshire Hathaway/H.J. Heinz Company) (1)

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,      2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the      period ending September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Modena 6,      Inc. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: October      1, 2005                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |
| /s/      Jacque Bryon Oliphant                              |
| Jacque      Bryon OliphantPresident,      CEO, CFO Director |
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 37856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13518]



[[Page 37856]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign 
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS Sunflower Project Company, LLC............  EG22-61-000
LeConte Energy Storage, LLC..................  EG22-62-000
Emerald Grove Solar, LLC.....................  EG22-63-000
Brightside Solar, LLC........................  EG22-64-000
High Point Solar LLC.........................  EG22-65-000
Sunlight Storage, LLC........................  EG22-66-000
Kearny Mesa Storage, LLC.....................  EG22-68-000
EnerSmart Murray BESS LLC....................  EG22-69-000
Ledyard Windpower, LLC.......................  EG22-70-000
Powell River Energy Inc......................  EG22-71-000
Byrd Ranch Storage LLC.......................  EG22-72-000
Graphite Solar 1, LLC........................  EG22-73-000
Magic Valley Energy Center, LLC..............  EG22-74-000
Enel Green Power Roseland Solar, LLC.........  EG22-75-000
25 Mile Creek Windfarm LLC...................  EG22-76-000
Seven Cowboy Wind Project, LLC...............  EG22-77-000
Laurel Mountain BESS, LLC....................  EG22-78-000
Chesapeake Beach BESS LLC....................  EG22-79-000
Longbow Solar, LLC...........................  EG22-80-000
Conrad (Minehead) Ltd., et al................  FC22-1-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of May 2022, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign 
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's 
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2021).

    Dated: June 17, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13518 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1111 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent 

excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on 

corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 

a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to 

political committees and on corporate expenditures on 

political advocacy campaigns. 

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 ‘‘Business Should Mind 

5 Its Own Business Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1111 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCISE TAX ON CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 

2 POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ON COR3 PORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL AD4 VOCACY CAMPAIGNS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 36 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to certain other excise taxes) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 chapter: 

9 ‘‘Subchapter E—Certain Corporate Political 

10 Activities 

‘‘Sec. 4491. Corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. 

11 ‘‘SEC. 4491. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL 

12 COMMITTEES AND CORPORATE EXPENDI13 TURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAM14 PAIGNS. 

15 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a corporation, 

16 there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 500 percent of the 

17 aggregate of the following amounts: 

18 ‘‘(1) The amount of contributions (as defined in 

19 section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

20 1971) made during the taxable year. 

21 ‘‘(2) The amount paid for an electioneering 

22 communication described in section 304(f)(3) of 

23 such Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1111 IH

1 ‘‘(b) CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS DISREGARDED.— 

2 For purposes of this section, any court determination that 

3 such Act does not apply to one or more corporations shall 

4 be disregarded.’’. 

5 (b) DENIAL OF INCOME TAX DEDUCTION.—Sub6 section (a) of section 275 of such Code is amended by in7 serting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(7) Taxes imposed by section 4491 (relating to 

9 corporate contributions to political committees and 

10 corporate expenditures on political advocacy cam11 paigns).’’. 

12 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub13 chapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by add14 ing at the end the following new item: 

‘‘SUBCHAPTER E. CERTAIN CORPORATE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES’’. 

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to amounts paid after the date of 

17 the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after 

18 such date. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Sidney Jack NARCISO, Petitioner v. Sandra V. NARCISO.

No. 19-5707

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama denied.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the quarterly report of PROLOR Biotech, Inc. (the “Company”) 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, 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 OfficerPROLOR
      Biotech,
Inc.
 August
14, 2009
# C_2009023EN.01S00301.xml

| 29.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
# C_2018183EN.01001801.xml

| 29.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/18

---

Corrigendum to the Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 162 of 8 May 2018
  )

(2018/C 183/09)

On page 16:

for:

‘Email addresses:

For dumping aspects:

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE FITTINGS-DUMPING-CHINA@ec.europa.eu,

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE FITTINGS-DUMPING-THAILAND@ec.europa.eu,

For injury aspects:

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE FITTINGS-INJURY@ec.europa.eu’,

read:

read:

‘Email addresses:

For dumping aspects:

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE-FITTINGS-DUMPING-CHINA@ec.europa.eu,

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE-FITTINGS-DUMPING-THAILAND@ec.europa.eu,

For injury aspects:

TRADE-R692-MALLEABLE-FITTINGS-INJURY@ec.europa.eu’.

---
----

Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-332/06 P)

(2006/C 224/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and I. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal Service)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1st ground of appeal: The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and subparagraph (a) of the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2245/99, because:

2nd ground of appeal: The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and applied incorrectly the principles of proportionality (force majeure) and of the protection of legitimate expectations with regard to the delay in bringing rice into intervention storage because:

----
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 12002E226

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 4: The Court of Justice - Article 226 - Article 169 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 169 - EEC Treaty***Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0125 - 0125 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0271 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0061 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available)*

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 4: The Court of Justice

Article 226

Article 169 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 169 - EEC Treaty

Article 226

If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations.

If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Sara ELYAS, Petitioner v. Edward Andrew JOHNSTON, et al.

No. 19-5849

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
cvtv_ex104.htm

EXHIBIT 10.4
 
Summary Translation of Amendment to OTT Platform Development Agreement
 
Party A: China VTV Ltd.
 
Party B: Xin Mei Culture, Ltd.
 
The first paragraph in the Recital of the OTT Platform Development Agreement dated December 22, 2016, shall be amended as follows: 
 
“WHEREAS: 
 
	 
	1.	Party A owns the OTT technology platform which is compatible with Google, Apple, and Android TV systems; Party A estimates that its viewer base will reach approximately 3.5 million in the next three years from December 22, 2016 (approximately 2.5 million users on Facebook, WeiBo, Miaopai and other social media, 1 million users on www.chinavtv.tw, and 30,000 Internet TV users); Party A is a new media company with complete systems and functions, and advanced technology.”


 
   
	Party A: China VTV Ltd.
		Party B: Xin Mei Culture
	 

			Distribution Co., Ltd.
	
				 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Tijin Song
		/s/ Feng Chen
	 

	Authorized Signature(s)
		Authorized Signature(s)
	
	Signature Date: 7/22/2019
		Signature Date: 7/22/2019