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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1797 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 

promulgate a consumer product safety standard with respect to rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility devices, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1797 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Setting Consumer 

3 Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD FOR CER5 TAIN BATTERIES. 

6 (a) CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD RE7 QUIRED.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Consumer 

10 Product Safety Commission shall promulgate, under 

11 section 553 of title 5, United States Code, a final 

12 consumer product safety standard for rechargeable 

13 lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility devices, 

14 including electric bicycles and electric scooters, to 

15 protect against the risk of fires caused by such bat16 teries. 

17 (2) INCLUSION OF RELATED EQUIPMENT.—The 

18 standard promulgated under paragraph (1) shall in19 clude requirements with respect to equipment related 

20 to or used with rechargeable lithium-ion batteries 

21 used in micromobility devices, including battery 

22 chargers, charging cables, external terminals on bat23 tery packs, external terminals on micromobility de24 vices, and free-standing stations used for recharging. 

25 (b) CPSC DETERMINATION OF SCOPE.—In promul26 gating the standard under subsection (a), the Commission 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 1797 RFS

1 shall determine the types of products subject to the stand2 ard and shall ensure that such products are— 

3 (1) within the jurisdiction of the Commission; 

4 and 

5 (2) reasonably necessary to include to protect 

6 against the risk of fires. 

7 (c) MODIFICATIONS.—At any time after the promul8 gation of the standard under subsection (a), the Commis9 sion may, through a rulemaking under section 553 of title 

10 5, United States Code, modify the requirements of the 

11 standard. 

12 (d) TREATMENT OF STANDARD.—A standard pro13 mulgated under this section, including a modification of 

14 such standard, shall be treated as a consumer product 

15 safety rule promulgated under section 9 of the Consumer 

16 Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00362-CV

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF Terry L. GILMER, Proposed Ward

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-070-PR

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order dismissing the 

appellants’ application to create a guardianship is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to 

the trial court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that appellants recover their costs of this 

appeal from the appellee.

SIGNED June 10, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1823 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1823

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, as the 
   ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1823

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, as the 
   ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.
```
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 8, 2003 Session JOHN HANNAH, JR. v. LINDSAY CRUSSELL, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County

No. 1-134-02
FILED JUNE 30, 2003

No. E2002-02475-COA-R3-CV

C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., J., concur ring in p art and d

issenting in part.

The trial court expressed

its conclusion that there was “no just reason for delay ,” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, in entering a final judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s claim aga inst his uninsured motorist carrier. This prompted the c ourt to ce rtify its judgme

nt as fina l, thus oste

nsibly conferring jurisdiction on the Cour

t of Appe als to rev

iew the pr

opriety of th e grant o f summary

judgmen t in favor of State Farm. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) and Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The trial court did not make specific factual fi nd ings to support its conclusory “no just reason for delay ” determination. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Che rn , 3 3 S .W .3 d 7 41 (T en n. 20 00 ) h as cl ea rl y s tated tha t such specific findings are “prefera

bl[e].” Id . at 745, n.3. I

agree with what I

perceive to be the majority ’s conclusion that the tr

ial cour t ab used its discretion when it directed the entry of the summary judgment as final. It seems to me that a g rant of summary judgment to an uninsured motorist carrier base d upon a cle ar showing that the factsdo not pre sently implicate

the claimant’s u ninsure d motorist coverage should, in almost all cases, remain in a non-final status while the underly ing litigation is still pen ding. Th is would permit the trial court to vacate the judgment in the event the defendant’s liability insurance ca rrier goes into bankruptcy during the pendency

of the case or in the event, f or som e other reason, the facts chang e so as to implicate the uninsured motorist coverage. This is not to

sugge st that the

re would not be othe

r way s to corr

ect wha t subseque

ntly turns out to be an improper grant of summary judgment; but obv iousl y it w ould be ea sier to ac complish th is objectiv e, at lea st during

the pende

ncy of the und

erly ing proc eeding s, if the g

rant wer e not fina l.

While I am inclined to ag r ee with the majority’s c onclusion that the grant of summary judgment was appropriate in this case, I must dissent from

the majority’s decision to rea ch this issue. This is because I have

serious reservations as to our jurisdiction to address this matter. It se ems to
me that the trial court’s error in directing the ent ry of a f

inal judgment negates our jurisdiction, which, of course, is based solely upon that direction.-2-

I would remand for further proceeding s, butdecline to addre ss the pro

priety of the summary judgment grant in this case. I

am uncomfortable in deciding this case on the merit s while at

the same time deci ding tha

t this litig ation is no t properly before us.



### _________________

_____________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARK P. JONES, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00009-WS-B

 :

KEVIN McKINNEY, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 7th of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00009-WS-B Document 31 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2



                        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Triton PCS Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, David D. Clark,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

                                                  /s/ David D. Clark
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: David D. Clark
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                                  Date: March 25, 2003
LOGICAL CHOICE CORPORATION


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 





	$                        	As of October 1, 2014



 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned,                               
(the “Maker”), hereby promises to pay to the order of
LOGICAL CHOICE CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (“Payee”), or its registered assigns (the “Holder”),
the principal sum of $                             
which shall be due and payable on or before March 31, 2015 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


1. Subscription Payment.
This promissory note (this “Note”) is given by the Maker in payment for the Maker’s subscription
to, and purchase of,                              
 shares of the common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of the Maker (the “Subject Shares”)
pursuant to a subscription letter, dated as of the date of this Note.


 


2. Interest. This Note shall not bear
interest; provided, that if this Note shall not be paid on the Maturity Date; this Note shall bear interest at the rate of
12% per annum calculated from the Maturity Date until the date that payment of this Note, plus all accrued interest hereon
shall be paid in full.


 


3. Suits for Enforcement.


 


(a) In the event that
this Note is not paid in full on the Maturity Date (an “Event of Default”), unless otherwise agreed
by the Maker, the Holder of this Note may, during the continuation thereof, proceed to protect and enforce its
rights hereunder by suit at law or by other appropriate proceeding, or may proceed to enforce the payment of this Note, or to
enforce any other legal or equitable right of the Holder of this Note, including return of the Subject Shares.


 


(b) The Maker shall
pay all costs of collection and enforcement of this Note, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.


 


4. Replacement of
Note. On receipt by the Maker of an affidavit of an authorized representative of the Holder stating the circumstances of
the loss, theft, destruction or mutilation of this Note (and in the case of any such mutilation, on surrender
and cancellation of such Note), the Maker, at its expense, will promptly execute and deliver, in lieu thereof, a new Note of
like tenor. If reasonably required by the Maker, such Holder must provide a reasonable indemnity agreement in connection with
any such replacement.


 


5. GOVERNING LAW.
THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND ENFORCED UNDER, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAW OF SUCH STATE.


 


6. Headings. The
headings in this Note are for convenience of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning hereof.


 


[signature page follows]


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Note to be
executed as of the date first written above.


 


	 	By:	
	 	Name:	
	 	Title:
#### Georgina Baez, Respondent, v Stuart Marcus et al., Appellants.

[874 NYS2d 134]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated January 24, 2008, as, in effect, upon granting reargument, adhered to its original determination in an order of the same court dated September 5, 2007, denying that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 511 to change venue from Kings County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the Supreme Court reviewed the merits of the defendants’ arguments on their motion for leave to reargue, the court, in effect, granted reargument and adhered to its original determination. Therefore, the order dated January 24, 2008, made upon reargument, is appealable *(see Matter of Mattie M. v Administration for Children’s Servs.,*48 AD3d 392, 393 [2008]; *McNeil v Dixon,*9 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]).

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an *586improper county *(see*CPLR 503 [a]; 510 [1]) must be “served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511 [a]). Here, since the defendants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue to New York County, and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory 15-day period *(see*CPLR 511 [b]), they were not entitled as of right to a change of venue to New York County *(see Obas v Grappell,*43 AD3d 431 [2007]; *Joyner-Pack v Sykes,*30 AD3d 469 [2006]; *Harleysville Ins. Co. v Ermar Painting & Contr., Inc.,*8 AD3d 229, 230 [2004]). Thus, their motion “became one addressed to the court’s discretion” *(Callanan Indus, v Sovereign Constr. Co.,*44 AD2d 292, 295 [1974]; *see Obas v Grappell,*43 AD3d at 432; *Pittman v Maher,*202 AD2d 172, 175 [1994]). Upon reargument, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion since the defendants failed to move promptly for a change of venue after ascertaining the plaintiffs alleged true residence *(see Acosta v Hadjigavriel,*6 AD3d 636 [2004]; *Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall,*268 AD2d 577 [2000]). In any event, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that none of the parties resided in Kings County at the time of the commencement of the action *(see Galan v Delacruz, 4*AD3d 449 [2004]; *Bailon v Avis Rent A Car,*270 AD2d 439 [2000]; *Llorca v Manzo,*254 AD2d 396, 397 [1998]). Spolzino, J.R, Santucci, Miller, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2091 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, 

Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the 

District of Columbia for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of Columbia 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2091 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT 

3 FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY 

4 COSTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR 

5 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for District of Columbia, Federal Payment for Emer9 gency Planning and Security Costs in the District of Co10 lumbia for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $12,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Marina RADTCHENKOVA,* Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73806.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.**

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

Marina Radtchenkova, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Alberto R. Gonzales, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*801Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Petitioner is also known as Margaret Manuk-yan.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,

concurring in result.

MEMORANDUM ***

Marina Radtchenkova, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Radtchenkova’s testimony was inconsistent with her declaration regarding whether she gave her boss a copy of a cassette tape recording about a crime. *See id.*at 1043 (explaining that one material inconsistency can be sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination). Furthermore, Radtchenkova’s husband lived in the United States at the time of the hearing, yet she failed to present corroborative evidence from him regarding Armenian government officials’ demands for the cassette tape, and the detention and beatings he and Radtchenkova allegedly suffered. *See Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that if the trier of fact does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application).

In the absence of credible testimony, Radtchenkova failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

			
	Certificate No. ****	  	No. of Shares: **** Ordinary Shares

 Midatech Pharma 

Company No. 9216368 

Incorporated under the Companies Act 2006 

This is to certify that SPECIMEN of **** is the registered holder of ** ** fully paid Ordinary Shares of £0.0001 in the capital of the
Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. 
 Executed by the Company in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. 

 

									
	  
	 		 	  
	 		 	
	Director	 		 	Director/Secretary	 		 	Date:

 No transfer of the whole or any part of the above Shares can be registered without production of this
certificate
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2283 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Water and Waste Disposal 

Program Account for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Rural 

Water and Waste Disposal Program Account for fiscal 

year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2283 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL 

3 UTILITIES SERVICE, RURAL WATER AND 

4 WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT FOR 

5 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities 

9 Service, Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Ac10 count for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,400,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2321 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2321

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Programs, Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
 Programs, Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED PROGRAMS, 
              EISENHOWER EXCHANGE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Programs, 
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```