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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3664 

To prohibit the Federal Government from preventing a private business from 

operating during a Government shutdown on Federal property leased 

by the business from the Federal Government. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2013 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Government from preventing a private business from operating during a Government shutdown on Federal property leased by the business from 

the Federal Government. 

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 ‘‘Allowing Commerce 

5 to Continue in the Event of Successive Shutdowns Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘ACCESS Act’’. 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3664 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PREVENTING PRIVATE BUSI2 NESSES FROM OPERATING ON LEASED FED3 ERAL PROPERTY DURING GOVERNMENT 

4 SHUTDOWN. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal department or agen6 cy may prevent a private business from operating its busi7 ness during a Government shutdown if the business is lo8 cated on property leased by the business from the Federal 

9 Government. 

10 (b) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘Government 

11 shutdown’’ means a period of a lapse in appropriations 

12 for any Federal department or agency as a result of a 

13 failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 

14 resolution. 

Æ 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136649 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136649 

 COA: 284119 

Oakland CC: 2007-216860-FH 

ALEXANDER WALLACE CARRIER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Oakland Circuit Court, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. On remand, the trial court shall 

sentence the defendant within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range, or articulate 

on the record a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the sentencing 

guidelines range and for the extent of the departure, in accordance with People v 

Babcock, 469 Mich 247 (2003), and People v Smith, 482 Mich ___ (Docket No. 134682, 

dec’d 7/31/2008). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Nancy ALFORD, Plaintiff, v. Renee GREEN, Defendant.

No. COA15-1101.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended May 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:



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



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



By:

/s/ David W. BullockDavid W. BullockExecutive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerPrincipal Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Xay VANG, Defendant.

No. COA15-1069.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004088EN.01005502.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/55

---

(2004/C 88 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Scandal involving illegal sterilisations in Slovakia

Subject:

Two non-governmental organisations have alleged that over the last 14 years at least 110 women from the Roma community in eastern Slovakia have been forcibly sterilised. Furthermore, the women were misinformed about reproductive health issues and suffered discrimination regarding access to the competent healthcare centres and their personal medical records.

Does the Commission intend to exert pressure on the Slovakian government to thoroughly investigate the above accusations and punish those responsible for this inhuman crime, so as to protect the health and reproductive rights of women in this country and the human rights of its minorities, thereby honouring its commitments as a new Member State of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

(31 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the allegations, published in a report of the ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ at the beginning of 2003, that Roma women have been sterilised without their consent or with coerced consent by doctors in Eastern Slovakia. The report also raised other human rights violations such as discriminatory access to health-care resources and treatment.

As already stated in its answers to questions E-0434/03 of Mr Meijer (1), E-0575/03 of Mrs Maes (2) and P-1630/03 of Mrs Maes (3), the Commission has immediately addressed this issue in a letter to Slovak Prime Minister Dzurinda, underlining that these allegations are a matter of serious concern and if proved to be true, would constitute a serious breach of human rights, provided the public authorities have supported or tolerated such occurrences or have not taken proper legal actions in this respect. Moreover, the Commission has asked the Slovak authorities to vigorously carry out the necessary criminal investigations, to remedy possible discriminatory measures and to keep the Commission informed about the proceedings.

1

2

3

In his reply, the Slovak Prime Minister informed the Commission that the competent authorities had launched the criminal investigations, with a special investigation team being set up. Furthermore, the Roma advisor to the Ministry of Interior, a Roma himself, had been assigned to consult this team and the Ministry of Health and the Slovak Gynaecological Society had been closely associated with the investigations. Furthermore, the Council of Europe has recently conducted a fact-finding mission to Eastern Slovakia to look into the sterilisation issue.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the further proceedings and outcome of the investigations and will consider further measures, if appropriate and necessary.

---

(1)  See page 12.

1

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 55.

2

(3)  See page 37.

3

---
# C_2009069EN.01001301.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Order of the Court of 28 November 2008 — Philippe Combescot v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-525/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Career development report - Duty to provide assistance - Mental harassment - Compensation for damage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2009/C 69/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and S. Corongiu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-249/04 Combescot v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for, first, recognition that the conduct of the appellant's hierarchical superiors was unlawful; recognition that the appellant had the right to assistance; and annulment of the appellant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; and, second, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant.

Combescot

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Combescot shall pay the costs of the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 31.4





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David E. Ullman, certify that:





|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1  on Form 10-K/A of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.;




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.




Date:May 9, 2014/s/ David E. UllmanDavid E. UllmanChief Financial Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-18-00396-CR

No. 02-18-00397-CR

No. 02-18-00398-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. F17-2958-431, F17-2959-431, F17-2960-431

Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

DERRICK RESHORD WALTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Derrick Reshord Walton filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s verbal 

denial of his attempts to reduce bail in three pending cases.

1 Although we informed 

appellant that we had not received a written order from the trial court––a prerequisite 

to appealability––the trial court has not signed one. See State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 

895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of 

jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 6, 2018

 1

Appellant filed both a motion to reduce bail and an application for habeas 

relief in which he complained that his bail was excessive. See Ragston v. State, 424 

S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that appellate courts do not have 

jurisdiction of appeal from denial of pretrial motion to reduce bail, only the denial of 

an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a bail reduction).
# C_2009044EN.01004401.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/44

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Peñalba Lopez (Torre Albéniz)

(Case T-287/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea - Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2009/C 44/75)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bodegas Peñalba Lopez, SL (Aranda de Duero, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and M. Yañez Manglano, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-597/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Peñalba Lopez, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries The Companys principal subsidiaries and affiliates at December 31, 2004 were as follows: Country ofCompany
    
    incorporation
    
    Principal activityCronos Containers Limited*
    
    UK
    
    Container leasing, management and
administrationCronos Containers N.V.*
    
    Netherlands Antilles
    
    Container investment managerCronos Capital Corp.
    
    USA
    
    General Partner and limited partnership
administration, container investment
managerCronos Securities Corp.
    
    USA
    
    Securities brokingCronos Containers Inc.
    
    USA
    
    Administration and marketing  USACronos Containers PTE Limited*
    
    Singapore
    
    Administration and marketing  SingaporeCronos Containers Pty Limited*
    
    Australia
    
    Administration and marketing  AustraliaCronos Containers S.R.L.
    
    Italy
    
    Administration and marketing  Southern
EuropeCronos Containers (Hong Kong)
Limited*
    
    Hong Kong
    
    Administration and marketing  Hong
Kong and AustralasiaCronos Container Leasing GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    Administration and marketing  GermanyCronos Equipment (Bermuda) Ltd*
    
    Bermuda
    
    Container investmentCronos Finance (Bermuda) Ltd*
    
    Bermuda
    
    Container investmentCronos Funding (Bermuda) Ltd
    
    Bermuda
    
    Container investmentC G Finance B.V.
    
    Netherlands
    
    Holding company and financingCronos Management N.V.*
    
    Netherlands Antilles
    
    Holding company and provision of
Executive servicesCronos Containers Scandinavia
AB
    
    Sweden
    
    Holding company and Intermodal
equipment managementIntermodal Leasing AB
    
    Sweden
    
    Intermodal equipment managementCronos Containers (Cayman)
Ltd.*
    
    Cayman Islands
    
    Container investment managerCronos Holdings Investments
Inc.*
    
    USA
    
    Holding companyCF Leasing Limited
    
    Bermuda
    
    50% owned container investment joint
venture company
   *
    
    Denotes companies owned directly by the Company. E1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3787 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3787

To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
  for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2013

 Mr. Lankford introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on 
 Veterans' Affairs, House Administration, and Oversight and Government 
 Reform, 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 repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
  for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND RETAINER PAY 
              AMOUNTS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER AGE 
              62.

    Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is hereby 
repealed.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR PENSIONS OF 
              MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO RETIRE BEFORE AGE 62.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the pension of a 
retired Member of Congress who is under the age of 62 shall not be 
increased.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS JOINT 
              CONTRACTING FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly ensure that 
brand-name prescription drugs purchased by the Department of Defense 
and by the Department of Veterans Affairs are purchased jointly by such 
Departments at the same level such drugs were purchased jointly by such 
Departments in fiscal year 2005 or in excess of that level.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,024,036
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  57,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,081,588
<PP&E>                                         11,947,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,062,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,251,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          476,497
<BONDS>                                        11,076,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,661,452
<COMMON>                                       815,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     (778,389)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,251,110
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,159,299
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               526,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             716,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (84,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (84,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (84,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2009069EN.01000701.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

(Case C-281/07) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - Error on the part of the national authorities - Limitation period)

(2009/C 69/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Applicant:

Defendant: Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Applicability of the time-limit laid down by Regulation No 2988/95 in the case of recovery of an export refund granted as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities but without any wrongdoing on the part of the trader concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The limitation period of four years laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is not applicable to a claim for recovery of an export refund unduly granted to an exporter as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities, where that exporter did not commit any irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40290 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL ANGEL ARRIAGA-SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1715-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel Arriaga-Salinas (Arriaga) has filed a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Arriaga has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.