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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2055 

To allow the Coast Guard to issue a certificate of documentation with a 

coastwise endorsement for the vessel OLIVER HAZARD PERRY, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2019 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To allow the Coast Guard to issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel OLIVER HAZARD PERRY, 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. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) In 2018, the Tall Ship SSV Oliver Hazard 

6 Perry was named the Official Flagship and Tall 

7 Ship Ambassador of Rhode Island. 

8 (2) At 200 feet long, the 3-masted Tall Ship 

9 SSV Oliver Hazard Perry is the largest civilian SailVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:55 Jul 09, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2055.IS S2055

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2055 IS

1 ing School Vessel in the United States and serves as 

2 Rhode Island’s Official Education Sailing Vessel. 

3 (3) The mission of the Tall Ship SSV Oliver 

4 Hazard Perry is to provide innovative and empow5 ering education-at-sea programs that promote per6 sonal and professional growth. 

7 (4) The Tall Ship SSV Oliver Hazard Perry is 

8 named after Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, from 

9 Rhode Island, who led United States forces to vic10 tory in the decisive Battle of Lake Erie in the War 

11 of 1812. 

12 SEC. 2. JONES ACT WAIVER FOR THE OLIVER HAZARD 

13 PERRY. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

15 12112(a)(2) of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary 

16 of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating 

17 may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise 

18 endorsement for the vessel OLIVER HAZARD PERRY 

19 (IMO number 8775560; United States official number 

20 1257224). 

21 (b) TERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF ENDORSE22 MENT.—The coastwise endorsement authorized under sub23 section (a) for the vessel OLIVER HAZARD PERRY 

24 (IMO number 8775560; United States official number 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2055 IS

1 1257224) shall expire on the first date on which any of 

2 the following apply: 

3 (1) The vessel is sold to a person, including an 

4 entity, that is not related by ownership or control to 

5 the person, including an entity, that owned the ves6 sel on the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (2) The vessel is rebuilt and not rebuilt in the 

8 United States (as defined in section 12101(a) of 

9 title 46, United States Code). 

10 (3) The vessel is no longer operating in primary 

11 service as a sailing school vessel or an educational 

12 sailing vessel. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### CAMBY v. RAILWAY CO. and WRIGHT v. RAILWAY CO.

No. 65 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 455.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-18-00311-CV

Style: Brandy Brenay Charles and Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services

Date motions filed*: June 21, 2018 and June 22, 2018

Type of motions: Emergency Motions to Abate for Disqualification of Trial Judge,

Appointment of Counsel, and Hearings on Motions for New Trial and

for Order to District Clerk to Discipline Deputy Clerks; Motions to 

Remand and for Appropriate Orders

Party filing motions: Pro se Appellants Brandy Brenay Charles and Ronald Dwayne 

Whitfield

Document to be filed: Response to Appellant Whitfield’s Emergency Motions to Abate

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: After counsel filed a notice of appearance for appellant Brandy Brenay 

Charles in this Court on June 6, 2018, she is not entitled to hybrid representation and, 

thus, her motions are dismissed as moot. See, e.g., In re D.W., 445 S.W.3d 913, 915 

n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (declining to consider pro se brief filed by 

mother in termination case after her counsel had filed brief). The Court requests a 

response from the appellee to the pro se appellant Whitfield’s motions to abate and to 

remand and for appropriate orders. The response, if any, should be filed by July 9, 2018,

the current deadline for appellee’s response to appellant’s other motions. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 2, 10.3(a).________________________________________________

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 

Date: June 26, 2018
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 38 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 28 of 28
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1865 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1865

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to make certain changes with 
respect to bringing a civil action for the misappropriation of a trade 
                    secret, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2019

  Ms. Harris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to make certain changes with 
respect to bringing a civil action for the misappropriation of a trade 
                    secret, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deterring Espionage by Foreign 
Entities through National Defense Act of 2019'' or the ``DEFEND Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS.

    Chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 1836--
                    (A) in subsection (b)(3)(C), by striking ``2 
                times'' and inserting ``3 times''; and
                    (B) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by 
                striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``5 years''; and
            (2) in section 1837--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) the offense causes substantial economic harm in the 
        United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. GRANT

No. 61 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 704.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 20 January 1971.
EXHIBIT 32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(a)

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



(b)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:   August 13, 2004





By   /s/ Becky Corigliano



Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer
#### MILDRED MARIE PURIFOY RIGGS and husband, ERNEST LEE RIGGS, v. LINWOOD EARL ANDERSON and wife, JUERNE ANDERSON.

(Filed 18 September 1963.)

Frauds, Statute of, §§ 3, 62—

Nonsuit is properly entered in an action to compel the conveyance of land by some of the tenants in common to plaintiff tenants in accordance with an alleged parol agreement, the defense of the statute of frauds being raised by a general denial of the parol agreement.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Burgwyn, E.J.,*January 1963 Session of Pamlico.

*222Action to recover damages for breach of contract to sell land.

The allegations of the complaint and the evidence introduced in support thereof are to the following effect: Plaintiffs and defendants herein (and others) were tenants in common and parties to a special proceeding for partition of land. Plaintiffs and defendants were petitioners and respondents, respectively, in the partition proceeding. The special proceeding, on appeal from a judgment of the clerk, was calendared for trial at the January 1960 Term of Pamlico Superior Court. Before it was reached for trial at that term there was a conference between counsel for defendants, counsel for plaintiffs, and one of the plaintiffs. After the conference counsel for defendants stated in open court that the proceeding would not be for trial, that his clients would accept the sum of $2500 for their interest in the land and would execute a deed to plaintiffs upon payment of that sum. The plaintiff who was present and his counsel assented. The trial of the partition proceeding was continued. Thereafter defendants refused to execute a deed to plaintiffs for their interest in the land, and refused to accept the $2500 which was tendered to them. Plaintiffs were damaged by reason of the breach of the agreement; they had purchasers for the land and the timber thereon and lost $5000 in profits which they would have made from a resale.

Defendants, answering, denied that there was any agreement, denied that their attorney had any authority to make a contract for sale of their interest, and averred that the offer made by their attorney was conditioned upon a later approval by them. Defendants’ evidence tends to support the allegations of the answer.

At the close of all the evidence the court sustained defendants’ motion for nonsuit. Plaintiffs appeal.

*Charles L.. Abemethy, Jr., for plaintiffs.*

*Cedi D. May for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The court did not err in nonsuiting plaintiffs. No memorandum or other instrument of writing containing the terms of the alleged offer and acceptance were signed by the parties or their attorneys or placed upon the minutes of the court, so far as the record on appeal discloses. Defendants accepted no part of the money tendered. A wholly unexecuted parol contract to sell land is void. *Carpenter v. Yancey,*231 N.C. 160, 56 S.E. 2d 396; *Kluttz v. Allison,*214 N.C. 379, 199 S.E. 395. A defense of the statute of frauds may be taken advantage of by general denial. *Humphrey v. Faison,*247 N.C. *223127, 100 S.E. 2d 524; 2 Strong: N. C. Index, Frauds, Statute of, s. 3, p. 389.

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 14 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 15 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 16 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 17 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 18 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 19 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 20 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 21 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 22 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 23 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 24 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 25 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 26 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 27 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 28 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 29 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 30 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 31 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 32 of 33
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 33 of 33
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cr-00374-CLB     Document 29      Filed 06/25/2007     Page 1 of 1
Figueira Declaration Tab 131

Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order at 

Request of Defendants
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 5488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


First Meeting, Special Committee 213 Enhanced Flight Vision 
Systems/Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision 
Systems/Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a first 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/
Synthetic Vision System, (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held February 27-28, 2007 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org for directions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 213 meeting. The agenda will 
include:
    <bullet> February 27-28:
    <bullet> Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and 
Administrative Remarks, Agenda Overview).
    <bullet> Federal Advisory Committee Act, RTCA Overview.
    <bullet> Select Secretary.
    <bullet> Review of Terms of Reference.
    <bullet> FAA Progress to date.
    <bullet> EFVS/SVS Manufacture briefings (20 minutes per briefing): 
Potential applications, proposed operational credit.
    <bullet> Discussion on planned tasks.
    <bullet> Initial organization of work.
    <bullet> Initial task assignment for next meeting.
    <bullet> Closed Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda, 
Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2007.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 07-506 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin

L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2129

___________

Beck, formerly known as David *

Wayne Beck, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Erik Skon; David Crist; Dr. Christopher * [UNPUBLISHED]

Ceman, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 4, 2004

Filed: March 18, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate “Reverend Beck” (formerly known as David Wayne

Vanderbeck) appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO). We affirm.
-2-

Beck filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials, claiming they

violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirmed the

district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants on all but one claim, i.e.,

that officials conditioned needed surgery on his execution of a release of liability. As

to that claim, we remanded for further development of the record. See Beck v. Skon,

253 F.3d 330, 334 (8th Cir. 2001). On remand, Beck filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction and TRO, and for “a three-judge court,” requesting the district court to stop

defendants from harassing him, denying him proper placements, denying him proper

medical treatment, denying him necessary legal documents, and placing him at further

risk of assault. The district court denied the motion.

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of injunctive relief, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1), and “we will reverse only for clearly erroneous factual determinations,

an error of law, or abuse of discretion,” see Manion v. Nagin, 255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th

Cir. 2001). There is no basis for reversal here. See Davis v. Francis Howell Sch.

Dist., 104 F.3d 204, 205 (8th Cir. 1997) (factors to determine whether injunctive

relief is warranted). To the extent Beck asserted in his motion that he is being denied

the opportunity to litigate the claim at issue on remand, there are avenues by which

he can seek specific documents and depositions necessary to litigate the relevant

claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), 56(f). Beck’s remaining bases for injunctive relief

are not within the scope of the remand order. Cf. Children’s Broadcasting Corp. v.

Walt Disney Co., 2004 WL 111806, at *8 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2004) (liability question

was beyond scope of limited remand for new trial on damages).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 2 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011050EN.01000301.xml

| 17.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/3

---

DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE

State aid — Germany

(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification

State aid C 22/10 (ex N 701/09) — Aid to innovation assistants (R&D) — Germany

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 50/03

The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 29 September 2010 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Germany has withdrawn its notification on 23 November 2010.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 9.11.2010, p. 24.

1

---
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 149 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 1