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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 523 

To amend the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 

the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 to authorize 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide additional assistance to State and local governments for utility costs resulting from 

the provision of temporary housing units to evacuees from Hurricane 

Katrina and other hurricanes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 

for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane 

Recovery, 2006 to authorize the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to provide additional assistance to 

State and local governments for utility costs resulting 

from the provision of temporary housing units to evacuees from Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 523 IS

1 SECTION 1. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR UTILITY COSTS RE2 SULTING FROM THE PROVISION OF TEM3 PORARY HOUSING UNITS TO EVACUEES 

4 FROM HURRICANE KATRINA AND OTHER 

5 HURRICANES. 

6 Section 2401 of the Emergency Supplemental Appro7 priations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 

8 Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109–234; 120 

9 Stat. 460), is amended by striking ‘‘12 months’’ and in10 serting ‘‘24 months’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
Order entered August 27 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01222
- CR ANGEL ESPINO PALOMO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F12
- 63321
- H



### O RDER
The Court DENI E S appellant’s August 25, 2014 pro se motion for appointment of new
counsel

. The Court GRANTS appellant an extension of time to file his pro se response to the Anders brief filed by counsel. The pro se resp onse is due by OCTOBER 6, 2014 . If the pro se response is not filed by that date, the appeal will be submitted on the Anders brief alone.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Angel Espino Palomo, TDCJ No. 1892894, Ferg uson Unit, 12120 Savage Dr., Midway, Texas 75852.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
# The Bathing Water (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 2363

Water Resources, England

# The Bathing Water (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2014

Made

2nd September 2014

Laid before Parliament

5th September 2014

Coming into force

1st October 2014

The Secretary of State is designated(1) for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(2) in relation to the environment.                        

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by that section of that Act.

## Title, commencement and applicationU.K.

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Bathing Water (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2014 and come into force on 1st October                     2014.                  

(2) These Regulations apply to England.

## Amendment of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013U.K.

2.—(1) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013(3) is amended as follows                  

(2) In the appropriate places, insert the following—

(a)“Ainsdale”;                  

(b)“Allonby”;                  

(c)“Crinnis”;                  

(d)“Henleaze Lake”;                  

(e)“Shoreham Beach”;                  

(f)“Shorthorn”;                  

(g)“Southsea East”.                  

(3) Omit the following—

(a)“Askam-in-Furness”;                  

(b)“Crinnis Golf Links”;                  

(c)“Crinnis Leisure Centre”;                  

(d)“Roan Head”                  

(e)“Southsea”.                  

Dan Rogerson

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

2nd September 2014

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations amend the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”).

Part 1 of Schedule 2 the Regulations is updated to include waters which have been identified by the Secretary of State as                     bathing waters in England, to omit those waters which are no longer identified as bathing waters and to amend the names of                     certain bathing waters.                  

No impact assessment has been prepared in relation to these Regulations as no impact on business or the voluntary sectors                     is foreseen.                  

1

S.I. 2008/301.                           

2

1972 c. 68; section 2(2) was amended by section 27(1)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c.51) and by Part 1 of the Schedule to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (c.7).                           

3

S.I. 2013/1675.
SELLARS v. PERRY.

No. 415P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mr. Kelvin W. Sellars, for Sellars, Kelvin W.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of July 2015 by Petitioner for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> *309"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
#### In the Matter of James Gaffney et al., Respondents, v Village of Mamaroneck et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 400]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of Kevin J. Plunkett, in his capacity as Village Attorney of the Village of Mamaroneck, dated September 30, 2003, denying the petitioners’ application, among other things, to choose their own counsel at the expense of the Village of Mamaroneck in a pending federal litigation, the Village of Mamaroneck and Kevin J. Plunkett, in his capacity as Village Attorney of the Village of Mamaroneck, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), dated July 7, 2004, as, fixed the compensation to be paid to the petitioners’ counsel at the rate of $250 per hour.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with one bill of costs to the petitioners.

“In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, a court will consider the following factors: ‘time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented; the lawyer’s experience, ability and reputation; the amount involved and benefit resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee charged by the Bar for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and the responsibility involved’ ” *(Steiger v Dweck,*305 AD2d 475, 476 *1033[2003], quoting *Matter of Freeman,*34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in fixing the compensation to be paid to the-petitioners’ counsel at the rate of $250 per hour.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40250

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CASEY PATRICK JONES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-497-2

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Casey Patrick Jones has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jones has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Jones’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-40250

2

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Jones’s response 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.
Exhibit 32.1

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 ERP Operating Limited Partnership (ERPOP) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David J. Neithercut                               
|David J. Neithercut                                   
|Chief Executive Officerof Registrants General Partner
|August 5, 2010
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 616 

To promote health care coverage parity for individuals participating in legal 

recreational activities or legal transportation activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To promote health care coverage parity for individuals participating in legal recreational activities or legal transportation activities. 

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 ‘‘HIPAA Recreational 

5 Injury Technical Correction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE AMENDMENTS. 

7 (a) ERISA.—Section 702(a)(3) of the Employee Re8 tirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 

9 1182(a)(3)) is amended— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 616 IS 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘CONSTRUCTION.—For’’ and in2 serting the following: ‘‘SCOPE.— 

3 ‘‘(A) WAITING PERIODS.—For’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON DENIAL OF BENE6 FITS.—For purposes of paragraph (2), a group 

7 health plan, or a health insurance issuer offer8 ing group health insurance coverage in connec9 tion with a group health plan, may not deny 

10 benefits otherwise provided under the plan or 

11 coverage for the treatment of an injury solely 

12 because such injury resulted from the participa13 tion of the individual in a legal mode of trans14 portation or a legal recreational activity.’’. 

15 (b) PHSA.—Section 2702(a)(3) of the Public Health 

16 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–1(a)(3)) is amended— 

17 (1) by striking ‘‘CONSTRUCTION.—For’’ and in18 serting the following: ‘‘SCOPE.— 

19 ‘‘(A) WAITING PERIODS.—For’’; and 

20 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON DENIAL OF BENE22 FITS.—For purposes of paragraph (2), a group 

23 health plan, or a health insurance issuer offer24 ing group health insurance coverage in connec25 tion with a group health plan, may not deny 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 616 IS 

1 benefits otherwise provided under the plan or 

2 coverage for the treatment of an injury solely 

3 because such injury resulted from the participa4 tion of the individual in a legal mode of trans5 portation or a legal recreational activity.’’. 

6 (c) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.—Section 9802(a)(3) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘CONSTRUCTION.—For’’ and in9 serting the following: ‘‘SCOPE.— 

10 ‘‘(A) WAITING PERIODS.—For’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON DENIAL OF BENE13 FITS.—For purposes of paragraph (2), a group 

14 health plan may not deny benefits otherwise 

15 provided under the plan for the treatment of an 

16 injury solely because such injury resulted from 

17 the participation of the individual in a legal 

18 mode of transportation or a legal recreational 

19 activity.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# C_2023321EN.01002701.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2023 — Bulgarfrukt — Fruchthandels GmbH v Oranzherii Gimel II EOOD

(Case C-389/23, Bulgarfrukt)

(2023/C 321/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bulgarfrukt — Fruchthandels GmbH

Defendant: Oranzherii Gimel II EOOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (2) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that a European order for payment must be annulled by the court in the context of proceedings in the event of failure to serve or to effect proper service on the defendant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (2) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that a European order for payment must be annulled by the court in the context of proceedings in the event of failure to serve or to effect proper service on the defendant?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that enforcement of a European order for payment must be declared inadmissible in the event of failure to serve the order for payment or to effect proper service on the defendant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides that enforcement of a European order for payment must be declared inadmissible in the event of failure to serve the order for payment or to effect proper service on the defendant?

| 3. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must Regulation No 1896/2006 be interpreted as meaning that a defendant who is aware that a European order for payment has been issued, but on whom that order has not yet been served or on whom service has not yet been properly effected, cannot yet effectively object to it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Must Regulation No 1896/2006 be interpreted as meaning that a defendant who is aware that a European order for payment has been issued, but on whom that order has not yet been served or on whom service has not yet been properly effected, cannot yet effectively object to it?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") of
Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best
of his knowledge and belief, that:

| |  |                                                                                       
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                       
| |  | /s/ Thomas R. McDanielThomas R. McDaniel Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  |                                                                                       
| |  |                                                                                       
| |  | /s/ Kevin M. SmithKevin M. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy        
| |  |                                                                                       
| |  |                                                                                       

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3058009-JAN-201208:38 AM
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAM RAY McNEAL, JR., ) DOC #274245, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3061 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed June 21, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. William Ray McNeal, Jr., pro se.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. CASANUEVA, KELLY, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 13.1


                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Industrias Bachoco, S.A. de C.V., a sociedad anonima
de capital variable organized under the laws of Mexico (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
(the "Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  June 29, 2004                   /s/ CRISTOBAL MONDRAGON FRAGOSO
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Cristobal Mondragon Fragoso
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  June 29, 2004                   /s/ DANIEL SALAZAR FERRER
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Daniel Salazar Ferrer
                                        Chief Financial Officer



      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Industrias Bachoco, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by
Industrias Bachoco, S.A. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
ex101form8k_sbh-112210.htm


  


 


Exhibit 10.1


 


First Amendment to the Employment Agreement







FIRST AMENDMENT, dated as of, and effective, November 16, 2010 (this “Amendment”), to the Employment Agreement dated as of August 11, 2010 (the “Agreement”) by and between Spectrum Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”) and David R. Lumley (the “Executive”).







WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects; and agree that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall otherwise remain in place, except as expressly amended herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties do hereby agree as follows, effective as of the date set forth below:







1.    Section 3(e) of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


New Stock-Based Award.  Subject to the Executive’s continued employment with the Company: (i) in fiscal year 2011, the Executive shall receive a grant of stock awards for fiscal year 2011 consisting of 173,600 restricted stock units covering common shares of Parent (the “RSUs”) and (ii) in fiscal year 2012, the Executive shall receive a grant for fiscal year 2012 of 173,600 RSUs. The vesting of the RSUs will be subject to time and performance based vesting and shall be subject to the terms and conditions as more fully set on Exhibit B, attached hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, the Executive will not be entitled to the grant of RSUs following the termination of his employment with the Company.


 


2.    The phrase “and Options” shall be deleted from Section 4(e) of the Agreement.


 


3.    This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws thereof that would call for the application of the substantive law of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware.


 


4.    This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be a duplicate original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single instrument.


 


 


[Signature Page follows]


 




  





  











  






 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 




	 	
Spectrum Brands, Inc.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ John T. Wilson                   	 
	 	 	Name:  John T. Wilson 	 
	 	 	
Title:    Senior Vice President, Secretary 


             and General Counsel

	 
	 	 	 	 







 



 




	 	

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.



	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ John T. Wilson                   	 
	 	 	Name:  John T. Wilson 	 
	 	 	
Title:    Senior Vice President, Secretary 


             and General Counsel

	 
	 	 	 	 







 









EXECUTIVE:












/s/ David R. Lumley                                        


Name:  David R. Lumley