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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4149 

To amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend the Veterans 

Retraining Assistance Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California (for herself and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and 

Commerce, 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 amend the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend 

the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Help Hire our Heroes 

5 Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4149 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF VETERANS RETRAINING ASSIST2 ANCE PROGRAM. 

3 Section 211 of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 

4 (Public Law 112–56; 38 U.S.C. 4100 note) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘March 

6 31’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30’’; and 

7 (2) in subsection (k), by striking ‘‘March 31’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘September 30’’. 

9 SEC. 3. TRANSFER FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STOR10 AGE TANK TRUST FUND TO VETERANS RE11 TRAINING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

12 Subsection (c) of section 9508 of the Internal Rev13 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

14 following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(3) TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

16 AFFAIRS.—Out of amounts in the Leaking Under17 ground Storage Tank Trust Fund there is hereby 

18 appropriated $270,000,000 to be transferred to the 

19 ‘Veterans Benefits Administration—Readjustment 

20 Benefits’ account of the Department of Veterans Af21 fairs for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Pro22 gram under section 211 of the VOW to Hire Heroes 

23 Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–56; 38 U.S.C. 4100 

24 note), to remain available until expended.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
JOHNS v. JOHNS.

No. COA07-1411.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from New Hanover (06CVD597, 06CVD4299).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00563-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: JANET RAE LOEHR

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

On October 1, 2008, relator, Janet Rae Loehr, filed a petition seeking a writ of

mandamus and writ of prohibition ordering the trial court to set aside a post-judgment order

in a divorce case. Relator further filed a motion for emergency relief and abatement of the

trial court proceedings. That same day, the Court dismissed as moot the motion for
 Relator also sought emergency relief in her appeal of the trial court’s judgment in appellate cause 2

13-08-00380-CV. In that matter, the Court granted the motion, in part, and stayed the trial court's temporary

order of September 26, 2008, and denied the motion, in part, as to all other relief requested by appellant. 

2

emergency relief and requested that the real party in interest, Roland Loehr, file a response

to the petition within ten days. The response was duly filed on October 14, 2008. 2

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and for writ of prohibition and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not

shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writs of mandamus

and prohibition is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 15th day of October, 2008.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00570-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: DAN UZZELL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Dan Uzzell, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on

October 7, 2008. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of

mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 8th day of October, 2008.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-100-05-1310-DB]


Notice of Meeting of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(1976) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale 
Anticline Working Group (PAWG) will meet in Pinedale, Wyoming, for a 
business meeting. Group meetings are open to the public.

DATES: The PAWG will meet October 25, 2005, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting of the PAWG will be held in the Lovatt room of 
the Pinedale Library, 155 S. Tyler Ave., Pinedale, WY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Stiewig, BLM/PAWG Liaison, Bureau 
of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 432 E. Mills St., P.O. Box 
738, Pinedale, WY 82941; (307) 367-5363.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) 
was authorized and established with release of the Record of Decision 
(ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and 
Development Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG advises the BLM on the 
development and implementation of monitoring plans and adaptive 
management decisions as development of the Pinedale Anticline Natural 
Gas Field proceeds for the life of the field.
    The agenda for this meeting will include discussions concerning any 
modifications task groups may wish to make to their monitoring 
recommendations, a discussion on monitoring funding sources, and 
overall adaptive management implementation as it applies to the PAWG. 
At a minimum, public comments will be heard prior to lunch and 
adjournment of the meeting.

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
Priscilla Mecham,
Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. 05-18877 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

I,
Joseph Rubinfeld, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/JOSEPH RUBINFELD                  
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Joseph Rubinfeld                     
| |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I,
Edward Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/EDWARD JACOBS                                  
| |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Edward Jacobs                                     
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
32.2

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 Quarterly Report of ICP Solar
Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Sass Peress,
Principal Accounting Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/Sass Peress ----------------------------------Sass PeressPrincipal Accounting Officer 
December 15, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's
Form 10-Q solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.

---
Order entered January 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01283-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S.J., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-12980-Z

ORDER

The Court has before it the State of Texas’s January 2, 2013 unopposed motion to extend 

time to file brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS the State to file its brief by 

February 4, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2011226EN.01002301.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Bavaria v European Commission

(Case T-235/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands beer market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Proof of the infringement - Access to the file - Fines - Principle of equal treatment - Reasonable period)

2011/C 226/45

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bavaria NV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented initially by O. Brouwer, D. Mes, A. Stoffer, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, A. Steffens and P. Schepens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A Nijenhuis, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents, and M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Netherlands beer market) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Bavaria NV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Bavaria NV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Bavaria in Article 3(c) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 20 712 375; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Bavaria in Article 3(c) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 20 712 375;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders Bavaria to pay two-thirds of its own costs and of those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Bavaria to pay two-thirds of its own costs and of those of the European Commission;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
# C_2010134EN.01002901.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-50/05) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of computer services relating to telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Consortium of tenderers - Admissibility - Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency - Award criteria - Principles of sound administration and diligence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment)

2010/C 134/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by L. Parpala and K. Kańska, subsequently by L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve and lastly by L. Parpala, E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 November 2004 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and another undertaking in a tendering procedure relating to the provision of computer services concerning the specification, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty within the European Community under the excise-duty suspension arrangements and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
# C_2014159EN.01004001.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-118/07) (1)

1

2014/C 159/55

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, 49.

1

---
In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Bruce J. ADAMS Dated December 28, 2004 and Recorded in Book 18194 at Page 265 in the Mecklenburg County Public Registry, North Carolina

No. COA16-653

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-08-00338-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE NATALIA CASTRO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Natalia Castro, filed a “TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4 Motion to Decrease Excessive

Amount of Security Ordered by the Trial Court; Alternatively, Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and Supporting Brief,” through which she seeks to decrease the amount of security ordered

by the trial court to supersede the underlying judgment. Relator complains that the trial

court abused its discretion in setting the amount of a supersedeas bond at $300,854.69.

In the instant case, an appeal of the underlying judgment has been perfected in this

Court in Cause No. 13-08-00298-CV. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and will review
2

matters pertaining to the supersedeas bond by motion filed in that appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 24.4(a); In re De Los Santos, No. 13-07-00571-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7585,

at *1-2 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Sept. 19, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). We

therefore conclude that relator has an adequate appellate remedy and is not entitled to

mandamus relief. See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428-29 (Tex. 1998)

(orig. proceeding) (relator must show it has no adequate remedy by law).

This Court previously ordered stayed the trial court’s order of May 20, 2008,

requiring a supersedeas bond in the amount of $300,854.69 and stayed execution or

enforcement of the underlying judgment pending this Court’s ruling under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 24.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c). That stay is dissolved as to this

appellate cause, but remains in effect as to appellate Cause No. 13-08-00298-CV, pending

our disposition of the motion filed therein. See id. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified,

an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).

The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 7th day of October, 2008.
State v. Victor Adrian Gutierrez

118P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Victor Adrian Gutierrez, Pro Per.

Ms. Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of September 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 16, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11982

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00166-CV-BAE

JOSEPH W. BLACKBURN, 

Representative Plaintiff and other 

persons similarly situated, the 

Plaintiff Class, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

JOHN C. CALHOUN, 

GEORGE R. FERNAMBUCQ, 

the Law Firm of Boyd, Fernambucq & Vincent, P.C. 

and its individual partners and/or shareholders, 

L. STEPHEN WRIGHT, 

the Law Firm of Najjar, Denaburg, P.C. 

and its individual partners and/or shareholders, 

CHARLES GORHAM, 

and the Law Firm of Gorham & Cason, L.L.C. 

and their individual partners and/or members, 

Defendants-Appellees. 
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(October 16, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This RICO action is rooted in an Alabama divorce suit. It was brought by 1

the plaintiff more than four years after the decree dissolving his marriage was

entered. The defendants are the judge who presided over the case, the lawyer who

represented appellant, the lawyer who represented his then wife, another unrelated

divorce lawyer, and their law firms. 

In a thoroughgoing order, record, vol. 3 at tab 73,the district court granted

the judge summary judgment on the ground of judicial immunity, and dismissed

the claims against the remaining defendants as barred by the statute of limitations. 

The court also denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend its judgment. Plaintiff

now appeals. 

We agree for the reasons stated in the district court’s order that plaintiff’s

claims were due to be dismissed. 

AFFIRMED. 

 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. 1

2
# Official Journal C 265/31 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 265 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4931 October 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 265

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4931 October 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 265/1 | Annual accounts for the financial year 2005 of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th European Development Funds | 1 |
| 2006/C 265/2 | Statement of Assurance by the Court of Auditors on the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th European Development Funds (EDFs) for the financial year 2005 | 256 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 265/1

Annual accounts for the financial year 2005 of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th European Development Funds

1

2006/C 265/2

Statement of Assurance by the Court of Auditors on the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th European Development Funds (EDFs) for the financial year 2005

256

---

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

EN