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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2241 

To provide for a study on the protection of Native American seeds and 

traditional foods, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Ms. MCSALLY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a study on the protection of Native American 

seeds and traditional foods, 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 ‘‘Native American Seeds 

5 Protection Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDY ON THE PROTECTION OF NATIVE AMERICAN 

7 SEEDS AND TRADITIONAL FOODS. 

8 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

9 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

10 shall conduct a study on— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2241 IS

1 (1) the extent to which seeds and foods that 

2 mimic Native American seeds or traditional foods 

3 are available in the commercial marketplace and are 

4 fraudulently identified as authentic Native American 

5 seeds or traditional foods, as of the date of enact6 ment of this Act; 

7 (2) the availability and long-term viability of 

8 Native American seeds, including an analysis of the 

9 storage, cultivation, harvesting, and commercializa10 tion of such seeds; 

11 (3) the extent to which Federal law, Federal 

12 programs, or Federal oversight protect Native Amer13 ican seeds and traditional foods from infringement, 

14 or unlawful or unauthorized commercialization; and 

15 (4) the means by which authentic Native Amer16 ican seeds and traditional foods might be protected 

17 to ensure preservation and availability for future 

18 generations. 

19 SEC. 3. CONFIDENTIALITY; FOIA; OWNERSHIP. 

20 (a) CONFIDENTIALITY.—The Comptroller General of 

21 the United States shall ensure the confidentiality of sen22 sitive information of Indian Tribes that is gained through 

23 the study conducted under section 2, including traditional 

24 cultural knowledge and information about locations that 

25 are considered to be sacred by an Indian Tribe. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2241 IS

1 (b) FOIA NOT APPLICABLE.—The information de2 scribed in subsection (a) shall be exempt from public dis3 closure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code 

4 (commonly known as the ‘‘Freedom of Information Act’’). 

5 (c) INDIAN OWNERSHIP.—Nothing in this Act shall 

6 be construed as interfering with, limiting, or otherwise af7 fecting the exclusive ownership and control of Native 

8 American seeds by an Indian Tribe unless the Indian 

9 Tribe consents to the ownership or control of such seeds 

10 by another entity. 

11 SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF INDIAN TRIBE. 

12 In this Act, the term ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ has the meaning 

13 given the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ (without regard to capital14 ization) in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 

15 Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00365

- CV

LAWRENCE MAURICE HIL L APPELLANT

V.

PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, L LC & STANFORD KURLAND APPELLEES

------------
FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 096

- 288693

- 16

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


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On November 15, 2017

, and February 6, 2018, we notified appellant in

accordance with rule of app ellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this
appeal unless the $ 205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $ 205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement o f the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28 , 20 15

, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 15 , 2018

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- D istr ict Litigation

, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals ’ fees).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5434-5435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-528]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
February 8, 2007, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

[[Page 5435]]


ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the 
meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

    <bullet> January 11, 2007 (Open and Closed).

B. New Business--Regulations

    <bullet> Joint and Several Liability--Priority of Claims (Proposed 
Rule).

C. Reports

    <bullet> Office of Management Services Quarterly Report.

    Dated: February 2, 2007.
Roland E. Smith,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 07-528 Filed 2-1-07; 4:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
**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 Global MobileTech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 2 for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Hon Kit Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

 

Dated:  July 11, 2011

By: /s/ Hon Kit Wong

 

       Hon Kit Wong

 

       Chief Financial Officer

 

       (Principal Financial and   

        Accounting Officer)

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### WALTON v. MEIR

No. 100 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 183.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 June 1972.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RICHARD AYCOX,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:10cv51-WS-GRJ

CITY OF GAINESVILLE,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 79)

docketed August 6, 2013. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

motion for summary judgment be granted and the plaintiff's motions for summary

judgment be denied. The plaintiff has filed objections (doc. 85) to the report and

recommendation.

Having reviewed the record in light of the plaintiff's objections, the court finds that

the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 85) is ADOPTED

and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. The defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 52) is GRANTED.
Page 2 of 2

3. The plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (doc. 63, 70) are DENIED.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "This action is dismissed with

prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of October , 2013.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 1:10cv51-WS-GRJ
# C_2012181EN.01020201.xml

| 21.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/202

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance’

COM(2012) 51 final — 2012/0023 (COD)

2012/C 181/38

On 27 February and 16 February 2012 respectively, the Council and the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 114 and 168 (4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards pharmacovigilance.

COM(2012) 51 final — 2012/0023 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion CESE 1025/2009, adopted on 10 June 2009 (1), it decided, at its 479th plenary session of 28 and 29 March 2012 (meeting of 28 March), by 157 votes to 1 with 9 abstentions, not to draw up a new opinion on the subject but to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

1

Brussels, 28 March 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---

(1)  OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 33.

1

---
# C_2009143EN.01001201.xml

| 24.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/12

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/95-98/09

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2009/C 143/06

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competitions to recruit proofreaders (AST 3).

| — | EPSO/AST/95/09 proofreaders with Estonian as their main language (ET) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/95/09 proofreaders with Estonian as their main language (ET)

| — | EPSO/AST/96/09 proofreaders with Irish as their main language (GA) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/96/09 proofreaders with Irish as their main language (GA)

| — | EPSO/AST/97/09 proofreaders with Polish as their main language (PL) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/97/09 proofreaders with Polish as their main language (PL)

| — | EPSO/AST/98/09 proofreaders with Slovenian as their main language (SL) |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/98/09 proofreaders with Slovenian as their main language (SL)

The competition notice is published in Estonian, Irish, Polish and Slovenian only, in Official Journal C 143 A of 24 June 2009.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---
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 Expedia, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Gregory S. Stanger, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 28, 2003



/s/    Gregory S. StangerGregory S. Stanger Chief Financial Officer




[A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Expedia, Inc., and will be retained by Expedia, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
----

----

| (1)   | the      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of United American Corporation for the year      ended December 31, 2007 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year      ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of United American      Corporation. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May      19 , 2008 | By:    | /s/ Benoit      Laliberté                                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Benoit      LalibertéPrincipal      Executive Officer,Principal      Financial Officer and      Director |   |
Exhibit
32.01








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Macrovision Solutions Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alfred J.
Amoroso certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:





(a) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and





(b) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
hereunto signed this Certification as of August 7, 2008.




By:
            /s/ Alfred
      J. AmorosoAlfred
      J. AmorosoChief
      Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60106

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Okanlawan O. Norbert, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19-cr-50

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Davis, Jones, Smith, Stewart, 

Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, 

Costa, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and

Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED by an equally 

divided court.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60106 Document: 00516192545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7327
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JONATHAN WAYNE HADRICK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR92-402) Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Wayne Hadrick, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Wayne Hadrick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he alleged prosecutorial misconduct in his criminal trial. Hadrick improperly invoked the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to collaterally attack a criminal judgment. United States v. O’Keefe , 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Mosavi , 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998)). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 15-2 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 4
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00405

- CR

The State of TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

Callie Mae MERRITT

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6014

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After w e granted Appellee’s first

, second , and third motion s for extension s of time to file

the brief

, A ppellee’s brief was due on April 2, 2018

. On April 9, 2018, Appellee filed a fourth

motion for a n extension of time to file the brief and the brief

.

Ap pellee’s fourth motion is GRANTED. A ppellee’s brief is deemed timely filed.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T BRI A N CA RR, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S T AT E OF OR E GO N; C I T Y O F P O R T L A N D ; L IN D A M E N G , i n h er of f i c i a l c apa c i ty a s C i ty A tt orne y of the C ity o f P o rtla n d ; H A R D Y M Y E R S , in h is of f i c i a l c apa c i ty a s A tt orne y G e ne r a l of the S t a t e of O r e gon, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 35902 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 3 9 8 - HA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nc e rL . H a gge r ty , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t11, 2011 ** B efo re: T H O M A S , S IL V E R M A N , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED SEP 6 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB r ia n P . C a rrap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n d is m is s in g h is ac t i on as barr ed by the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s and for l ac k o f s ubj ec t -m att er j ur i s di c t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. R e vi e w i ng de n o v o , N o e l v . H a ll , 3 4 1 F. 3 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , w e a f f i rm. C ar r’s c o m p lain t i n th e d istrict co u rt se ek s to o v er tu rn th e s tate co u rt’s re fusa l t o sea l hi s arr es tre cord. H i s s ui ti s barre d b y the R ooke r - Fe ldm an d o c tr in e .

“ If a fed eral p l ai n t i ff assert s as a l eg al w ro n g an al l eg ed l y erro n eo u s d eci si o n b y a s t a t e c ourt , a nd s e e ks r e l i e f f r om as t a t e c our tj udgm e ntba s e d on tha tde c i s i on, R ooke r - Fe ldm an bars subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on i n federa l di stri ctcourt . ” I d. at 1 1 6 4 ; W o r ldw ide Ch u r c h o

f G o d v . McN a ir , 80 5 F . 3d 88 8, 89 1 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). C arr a l so chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o al l ow hi m l ea ve t o fi l e an a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. R e v ie w in g f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , P lan ned P arentho odv. N e e ly , 13 0 F . 3d 40 0, 40 2 (9th C i r. 19 97 ), w e a ff i rm . C arr’ s propo se d am ended com pl ai ntsoug htt o i ntrodu ce a “ se para t e, di st i nctand n ew cause of a ct i on , ” i d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tthe r e f or e di d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng l e a ve t o a m e nd. C arr’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
#### UTILITIES COMM. v. TANK LINES and UTILITIES COMM. v. TRANSPORT CO.

No. 13 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 543.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1978. Motion of Protestant-Intervenors to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 February 1978.
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 31-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 31-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 31-2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 3