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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 374 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 374

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 7, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2213) to amend the Anti-Border Corruption 
Act of 2010 to authorize certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland 
Security now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 6
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       3,285
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      5,035
<RECEIVABLES>                                 118
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                941
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,094
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                        0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                     159
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                           159
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                 0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    7,734
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                         731
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                         760
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  (3,755)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                          0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                         0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                        0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                    1,957
<NET-ASSETS>                                5,936
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              32
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              22
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  0
<EXPENSES-NET>                              1,058
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    (1,005)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                      418
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                     307
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                        (280)
<EQUALIZATION>                                  0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                        0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                           0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                         1
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    21
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                             0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                       (280)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    (6,024)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                   2,855
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                         0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                      0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                             1,058
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        6,573
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                        8.41
<PER-SHARE-NII>                             (1.32)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                      0.95
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                            0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                       0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                            0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                          8.12
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                             16.09



</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

EDWARD WALKER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1107

[ July 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 98

- 8741CF10A, 98

- 9012CF10A

, 98

- 15893CF10A and 99

- 20178CF10A

.
Edward Walker, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appel lee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and T AYLOR , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# EUR-Lex - 31973R0950 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31973R0950

**Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 950/73 of the Council of 2 April 1973 amending Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 1826/69 laying down the form of the 'laissez-passer' to be issued to members and servants of the institutions **

*
Official Journal L 098 , 12/04/1973 P. 0001 - 0005 Greek special edition: Chapter 01 Volume 1 P. 0191 Spanish special edition: Chapter 01 Volume 1 P. 0207 Portuguese special edition Chapter 01 Volume 1 P. 0207 *

+++++

( 1 ) OJ NO L 235 , 18 . 9 . 1969 , P . 1 .

REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 950/73 OF THE COUNCIL OF 2 APRIL 1973 AMENDING REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 1826/69 LAYING DOWN THE FORM OF THE " LAISSEZ-PASSER " TO BE ISSUED TO MEMBERS AND SERVANTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,

HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF THE PROTOCOL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ANNEXED TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ;

WHEREAS , PURSUANT TO REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 1826/69 ( 1 ) , THE " LAISSEZ-PASSER " ISSUED TO MEMBERS AND SERVANTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS ARE DRAWN UP IN FOUR LANGUAGES ;

WHEREAS , FOLLOWING THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , THE " LAISSEZ-PASSER " SHOULD BE DRAWN UP IN SIX LANGUAGES ; WHEREAS IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO ADAPT THE FORM OF THE " LAISSEZ-PASSER " ANNEXED TO REGULATION NO 1826/69 ;

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :

ARTICLE 1

THE ANNEX TO REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 1826/69 IS REPLACED BY THE ANNEX TO THIS REGULATION .

ARTICLE 2

HOWEVER , " LAISSEZ-PASSER " WHOSE VALIDITY HAS NOT YET EXPIRED SHALL REMAIN VALID UNTIL THE ISSUE OF " LAISSEZ-PASSER " IN THE FORM LAID DOWN BY THIS REGULATION .

THIS REGULATION SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES .

DONE AT LUXEMBOURG , 2 APRIL 1973 .

FOR THE COUNCIL

THE PRESIDENT

R . VAN ELSLANDE

ANNEX : SEE OJ NO L 98 OF 12 . 4 . 1973 .
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1175 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1175

 Supporting increased awareness of sepsis and the importance of early 
                diagnosis and appropriate intervention.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2018

   Ms. Matsui (for herself and Mr. Guthrie) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting increased awareness of sepsis and the importance of early 
                diagnosis and appropriate intervention.

Whereas sepsis is a medical condition resulting from an immune system response 
        to an infection;
Whereas this overwhelming response to infection can rapidly lead to tissue 
        damage, organ failure, and death;
Whereas over 1.7 million individuals in the United States develop sepsis each 
        year;
Whereas over 270,000 individuals in the United States die from sepsis each year, 
        more than from prostate cancer, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that one in 
        three patients who die in a hospital have sepsis;
Whereas according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, sepsis is 
        the most common diagnosis for inpatient hospital stays in the United 
        States;
Whereas sepsis is the most expensive condition treated in hospitals in the 
        United States, consuming over $24 billion each year;
Whereas sepsis is the number one cause of hospital readmissions, generating over 
        $2 billion in costs annually;
Whereas over 80 percent of septic patients are septic upon admission to the 
        hospital;
Whereas mortality from sepsis increases by up to eight percent for every hour 
        that treatment is delayed;
Whereas rapid diagnosis and treatment can prevent up to 80 percent of sepsis 
        fatalities; and
Whereas the combination of early detection of sepsis and appropriate 
        interventions can significantly improve the chances of survival for 
        patients with all types of sepsis: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) is committed to increasing awareness of sepsis and 
        encouraging the education of patients, families, health care 
        professionals, and government agencies on the critical 
        importance of early diagnosis as the key for patients to 
        survive sepsis; and
            (2) supports innovative public-private partnerships and the 
        pursuit of innovative financing tools, incentives, and other 
        mechanisms to accelerate the pursuit of improved early 
        detection and appropriate intervention for patients with 
        sepsis.
                                 <all>
```
"To promote the airfield and industrial park with

fiscally responsible management and provide a

diverse economic base/or the Greater Kingman Area"

May 10,2014

Ms. Susan L. Kurland

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and Internal Affairs

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Tentative Order Regarding Termination ofEAS Eligibility

Order 20 I4-4.26

r..-

Dear Ms. Kurland

(>:) -

, -

CF-I~--~;: .. I

I~ :c-')-

U 0""-:- _':-1

Please consider the following information when making your determination of Kingman,iA'Hii:-)

eligibility. L • •

-D

Kingman has been a participant in the EAS program since its inception and the hub designation

is always debated. Is Kingman's hub Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) in Phoenix, due to

the ability to enter the national transportation system and the state government location for doing

business, or is it McCarran International Airport (LAS) in Las Vegas due to the closer proximity.

LAS has always been a destination airport and in recent years connections into the national

system have been reduced during daytime hours including cutbacks in service by Southwest

Airlines and US Airways. The connections in PHX are also difficult, but more as a result of the

physical design of multiple terminal structures and ground distances to cross with limited

transfer times.

During 2013, Great Lakes Airlines was flying to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to

maximize connections into the national system. We acknowledge the enplanements generated

did not meet the goals established by the EAS Program. We also recognize there was a Federal

Aviation Administration rule change that took effect on August I. 20 13 pertaining to the

minimum hours of commercial time required for pilots that caused cancellations and loss of

travelers due to uncertainty of flights.

On January 1,2014, Great Lakes Airlines initiated service to Kingman with one daily round trip

flight to LAX and one daily round trip flight to Denver International Airport (DEN) which

allows the airline to maximize their operations for equipment and maintenance with the qualified

pilots stilI available. This two hub service is the best Kingman has experienced since the early

1980's and it should be allowed to be cultivated.

Kingman Airport Authority, Inc .• 7000 Flightline Drive. Kingman, AZ 86401 • (928) 757.2134 • FAX (928) 757-9871
Ms. Susan L. Kurland

Tentative Order Regarding Termination ofEAS Eligibility

Order 2014-4-26

May 10,2014

Page 2

The EAS Program was born out of airline deregulation, and intended to maintain the ability to

access the national transportation system from rural communities. Technology has changed,

transportation has changed and hub airports are busy during peak hours to accommodate

competitive airline operations. Rural America still needs access to the national system, but we

can't compete in the current market without assistance. We respectfully ask for your help.

Sincerely,

David French

Executive Director

DFlbr

CC: KAA Board of Directors

Kingman City Council Members

Mohave County Board of Supervisors
#### Binghamton Plaza, Inc., Appellant, v. Hyman Gilinsky et al., Respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from that part of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Broome County, entered upon a decision of the court without a jury, as granted appellant nominal damages of $1. It is not here disputed that in constructing an addition to the rear of their garage to accommodate an automobile parts department respondents violated a restrictive covenant contained in an agreement for the sale of real property and in the deed for such property. Nor is the trial court’s refusal to specifically enforce the covenant now challenged. The sole remaining question is whether the trial court properly refused to award appellant more than nominal compensatory damages. The denial of requested punitive damages was clearly discretionary with the trial court and we find advanced no basis to disturb its decision (14 N. Y. Jur., Damages, § 177). In awarding only nominal compensatory damages the trial court held that appellant had failed to show that the remaining property had been damaged by respondents’ failure to abide by the restrictive covenant. The measure of damages for breach of a restrictive covenant is the difference between the fair market value of the property prior to the breach and the fair market value of the property subsequent to the breach *(Flynn*v. *New York, Westchester & Boston Ry. Co.,*218 N. Y. 140; *Ackerman*v. *True,*175 N. Y. 353, mot. for rearg. den. 176 N. Y. 560; *Wicks*v. *Pallone Co.,*48 Misc 2d 734, revd. on other grounds 29 A D 2d 626), and the appellant clearly had the burden of establishing such difference. In our opinion the instant record contains not only absolutely no valid evidence that the violation of the restrictive covenant caused a decline in the value of the appellant’s land but even little probative evidence that the value of appellant’s land declined in value after the violation. Accordingly, on this state of the record the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum *Per*Curiam; Aulisi, J., not voting.
§ 1136.220 Records for joint or long-term use. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in: ( 1 ) 2 CFR 200.334 states that a Federal awarding agency must request that a recipient transfer records to its custody if the agency determines that the records have value that warrants long-term retention. It also provides that the agency may instead arrange for the recipient to retain records that are continuously needed for joint use.
( 2 ) 2 CFR 200.333(d) exempts records transferred to a Federal agency from the standard records retention requirement.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must inform recipients that they may be asked to transfer records, maintain them for joint use, or retain them for a longer period.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix B to this part provides for Section D of OAR Article II.
# EUR-Lex - 31990R1844 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31990R1844

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1844/90 of 29 June 1990 laying down specific provisions concerning export refunds in the pigmeat sector **

*
Official Journal L 168 , 30/06/1990 P. 0017 - 0017 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1844/90

of 29 June 1990

laying down specific provisions concerning export refunds in the pigmeat sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1249/89 (2), and in particular Article 15 (6) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2768/75 of 29 October 1975 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on pigmeat and criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (3), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,

Whereas, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1638/90 of 18 June 1990 fixing the export refunds on pigmeat (4) it has been decided not to fix any refund on products exported to the German Democratic Republic; whereas the fact that no refund has been fixed should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the lowest rate of the refund granted in the case of export to other destinations;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The fact that no refund has been fixed on export of the products listed in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 to the German Democratic Republic, the rate of which is lower than the lowest rate fixed for other destinations, shall not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the lowest rate of refund within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (5) or applying Articles 4 (7) and 5 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 (6).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 19 June 1990.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 1990.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 129, 11. 5. 1989, p. 12.

(3) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 39.

(4) OJ No L 153, 19. 6. 1990, p. 25.

(5) OJ No L 351, 14. 12. 1987, p. 1.

(6) OJ No L 62, 7. 3. 1980, p. 5.
H. Res. 741

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

March 29, 2006.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 609) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate 

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in 

the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 

text of the Rules Committee Print dated March 22, 2006. 
2

•HRES 741 EH 

That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment 

in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment 

in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 

printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such amendments are waived. After disposition of the 

amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, 

the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No 

further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

Attest: 

Clerk.
§ 602.11 Funding. ( a ) The project period during which DOE expects to provide support for an approved project under this part shall generally not exceed 3 years and may exceed 5 years only if DOE makes a renewal award or otherwise extends the award. The project period shall be specified on the Notice of Financial Assistance Grant (DOE Form 4600.1).
( b ) Each budget period of an award under this part shall generally be 12 months and may be as much as 24 months, as DOE deems appropriate.
§ 1000.306 Cost sharing or matching. Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.306(e), Low Income Taxpayer Clinic grantees may use the rates found in 26 U.S.C. 7430 so long as: ( a ) The grantee is funded to provide controversy representation;
( b ) The services are provided by a qualified representative, which includes any individual, whether or not an attorney, who is authorized to represent taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service or an applicable court;
( c ) The qualified representative is not a student; and
( d ) The qualified representative is acting in a representative capacity and is advocating for a taxpayer.