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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4028 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4028

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Cemeteries are sacred sites that are of great 
        spiritual, cultural, and historical significance to many 
        religious and ethnic groups.
            (2) Congress is committed to protecting and preserving the 
        heritage and sacred sites of national, religious, and ethnic 
        groups, which includes cemeteries in the United States and 
        abroad.
            (3) Cemeteries around the world have and continue to be 
        defaced or destroyed as a direct result of their affiliation 
        with a particular religious or spiritual group.
            (4) Such attacks constitute an assault on the fundamental 
        right to freedom of religion, and are especially egregious when 
        sponsored or tolerated by the local or national governments in 
        the countries in which such offenses occur.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998.

    Section 2(a)(4) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)) is amended in the fourth sentence by inserting 
``desecration of cemeteries,'' after ``confiscations of property,''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4028

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the 
  desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the 
                      right to religious freedom.
```
In the Matter of T.H. and M.B.

No. COA15-866.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Annual Report of Viewpoint
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Anthony L. Pane, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my
knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report to which this certification
    is attached as an exhibit, 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.                            



| |     |                    
| | --- | -------------------
| | By: | /s/ ANTHONY L. PANE

| |                          
| | -------------------------
| |                          
| | Anthony L. Pane          
| | Senior Vice President and
| | Chief Financial Officer  

Dated: June 27, 2003
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-278-CR

CELINDA ANN LEWIS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

On April 21, 2008, Appellant Celinda Ann Lewis pleaded guilty to assaultbodily injury to a family member. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Lewis

was sentenced to 365 days’ confinement in the Parker County Jail and ordered

to pay a $500 fine. The trial court suspended imposition of the jail portion of

the sentence and placed Lewis on twelve months’ community supervision. On
2... The State concedes that Lewis’s response was timely filed.

2

that same day, the trial court entered its certification of Lewis’s right to appeal

in accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The

certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO

right of appeal.”

Lewis filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2008. We notified Lewis’s

attorney on August 13, 2008, that the certification indicating that Lewis had

no right to appeal had been filed in this court and that this appeal would be

dismissed unless Lewis or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a

response on or before August 25, 2008, showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Lewis filed a response on August

28, 2008, indicating that she is attempting to appeal her claimed denial of

counsel and involuntary plea.2

Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right to appeal in a plea bargain case to those

matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to

those cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), (B). Although Lewis filed a

response, she has not indicated that either of these exceptions apply in this

case. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A
3

court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant

who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a

prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.

Here, appellant had no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to

the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions

stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2).”).

Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification that this is a

plea-bargain case and that Lewis has no right to appeal, we dismiss this appeal

“without further action.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f); Chavez, 183

S.W.3d at 680.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55812-55813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19051]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

42 CFR Parts 447 and 455

[CMS-2198-CN]
RIN 0938-AN09


Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2005 
entitled ``Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital 
Payments.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Frizzera, (410) 786-9535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In FR Doc. 05-16974 of August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262), we 
inadvertently omitted a sample Excel spreadsheet that displays the 
reporting requirements described in section III.A. of the proposed 
rule.

II. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 05-16974 of August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262), we are making 
the following correction:
    On page 50264, third column, after the first full paragraph, add 
the following Excel spreadsheet:
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P

[[Page 55813]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23SE05.059

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical 
Assistance Program)

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Ann C. Agnew,
Executive Secretary to the Department.
[FR Doc. 05-19051 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3771 

AN ACT 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash 

contributions for the relief of victims of the Typhoon 

Haiyan in the Philippines. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3771 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Philippines Charitable 

3 Giving Assistance Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR 

5 CHARITABLE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RE6 LIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN 

7 THE PHILIPPINES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any 

10 contribution described in subsection (b) made after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act, and before April 15, 

12 2014, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 

13 2013, and not in 2014. 

14 (b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is 

15 described in this subsection if such contribution is a cash 

16 contribution made for the relief of victims in areas af17 fected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which a charitable con18 tribution deduction is allowable under section 170 of the 

19 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

20 (c) RECORDKEEPING.—In the case of a contribution 

21 described in subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the 

22 name of the donee organization, the date of the contribu23 tion, and the amount of the contribution shall be treated 
3 

•HR 3771 EH

1 as meeting the recordkeeping requirements of section 

2 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3771 

AN ACT 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable 

Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. cash contributions for the relief of victims of the
**Exhibit32.3**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.                                       DouglasP. Teitelbaum is a Manager of BH/RE, LLC, a Nevada Limited-Liability Company(the “Company”).

 

2.                                       Theundersigned certifies to the best of his knowledge:

 

(A)  TheCompany’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 accompanyingthis Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

 

(B)  Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 16, 2005

  |                      |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                              |                      |
|                              |                      |
|                              | /S/ Douglas P. Teitelbaum |   |
|                              | Douglas P. Teitelbaum     |
|                              | Manager                   |

 

----
TO: All Court of Appeals Judges, Professor Bacigal, Professor Swisher and John Tucker

FROM: Marty Ring

DATE: June 2, 2015

The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

appealed to the Supreme Cour t:

1

. Angela C. Bess, M.D.

v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth

- Related Neurological Injury Compensation

Program

Record No. 1191

- 14

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

March 3, 2015

2. Loudoun Hospital Center, d/b/a Inova Loud oun Hospital, Azam Dabirzadeh, R.N., and

Alysia Warfield, R.N.

v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth

- Related Neurological Injury Compensation

Program

Record No. 1211

- 14

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

March 3, 2015

3. Women’s Hea lthcare Associates, Inc.

v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth

- Related Neurological Injury Compensation

Program

Record No. 1180

- 14

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

March 3, 2015

4. Andrew Becker, s/k/a Andrew Ira Becker

v. Commo nwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1611

- 13

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Petty on

March 24, 2015

5. Alexy J. Abdo, a/k/a Alexi J. Abdo

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0965

- 14

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge McCullough on

March 24, 201 5

6. Darius Oneil Dalton

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 2385

- 13

- 3

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Huff on

March 31, 20157

. James Rush

v. University of Virginia Health System/Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1886

- 14

- 3

O pinion rendered by Judge McCullough on

March 31, 2015

8

. Bruce Edison Parham

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0772

- 14

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Decker on

April 7, 2015
State v. Ronnie Paul Godbey

443PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Godbey, Ronnie Paul.

Anita LeVeaux, Assistant Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Southport.

Amy Bircher, Assistant Attorney General.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of December 2016 by State of NC to Amend Response to Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
# C_2010288EN.01007603.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/76

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2010 — Potoms and Scillia v Parliament

(Case F-26/07) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/146)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 37.

---
# C_2008301EN.01001102.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-411/07) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 - Optocouplers)

(2008/C 301/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X B.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1) — Optical-electrical circuit that is an integral part of a machine enclosed in a plastic case containing a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic film and a photodetector and amplifying circuit and is intended for incorporation in communication and computer equipment, consumer electronics and industrial machines — Headings 8541, 8542 and 8543 of the CN

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that an optocoupler, regardless of whether not it contains an amplifying circuit, falls within heading 8541.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jadarrius Duntavias WILLIAMS, Defendant.

No. COA15-12.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2008247EN.01002402.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/24

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — SIMSA v Commission

(Case T-480/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 247/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 29, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11433

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-01013-CV-J-32-JRK

STERLING R. LANIER, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

R. SMITH, 

Captain, 

SERGEANT ALLEN, 

E.L., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 29, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sterling Lanier, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal

without prejudice of his civil complaint. We affirm.

Lanier alleges that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for

failure to prosecute because he had been denied reading, writing, and mail

privileges for a three month period, which made it impossible for him to comply

with an order to provide additional copies of the complaint for service on the

defendants. On February 12, 2008, the district court entered an order for Lanier to

show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

The district court found that Lanier had failed to comply with an order entered on

January 3, 2008, to submit either two service copies of the original complaint or

file an amended complaint within 30 days. On March 19, 2008, the district court

dismissed Lanier’s complaint without prejudice. The court instructed the clerk to

send Lanier forms for a complaint, an affidavit of indigency, and a prisoner

consent and financial certificate.

We review a dismissal without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), for abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178

F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). We ordinarily apply a less stringent standard of

review to a dismissal of a suit without prejudice, so long as the statute of
3

limitations does not prevent the party from refiling the case. Boazman v. Econ.

Lab., Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 212–13 (5th Cir. 1976). Lanier’s complaint that his civil

rights were violated when officers used excessive force against him, 42 U.S.C. §

1983, is governed by the residual statute of limitation for complaints of personal

injuries in the forum state; in Florida, this statute of limitation is four years. 

Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003). “While dismissal is an

extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the

litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v.

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Lanier’s

complaint. Lanier had previously been notified that he had a limited time in which

to meet the filing and service requirements of the court. After Lanier failed to

satisfy those requirements, the district court dismissed Lanier’s complaint without

prejudice. The statute of limitation has not yet run on Lanier’s underlying cause of

action.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2011194EN.01001201.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-423/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Aviation sector - Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission - No need to adjudicate - Obligation to act - None)

2011/C 194/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a position on the applicant’s complaint concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners in the form of the exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport (Germany) and, second, alleged abuse of a dominant position by Munich Airport

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the claim submitted by Ryanair Ltd that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the claim submitted by Ryanair Ltd that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa;

| 2. | Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa’s Star Alliance partners; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa’s Star Alliance partners;

| 3. | Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged abuse of a dominant position; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged abuse of a dominant position;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by Ryanair; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by Ryanair;

| 5. | Orders Ryanair to pay half its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ryanair to pay half its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
# C_2010288EN.01006601.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/66

---

Order of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Fabryka Samochodòw Osobowych v Commission

(Case T-88/07) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/118)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007.

---