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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 144 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 144

 Commending Johan Jorgen Holst of Norway for his contribution to peace 
                          in the Middle East.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 15 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

    Ms. Moseley-Braun submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending Johan Jorgen Holst of Norway for his contribution to peace 
                          in the Middle East.

Whereas the Government of Norway of Gro Harlem Brundtland has worked assiduously 
        to develop relationships with the Government of Israel and the Palestine 
        Liberation Organization;
Whereas Foreign Minister Holst personally mediated negotiations between 
        Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli 
        Foreign Minister Shimon Peres which facilitated mutual recognition and 
        hope for a political solution to the problems of the Middle East;
Whereas many of the meetings were held in the familiar environment of the 
        Foreign Minister's private home so that decades of hostility and 
        suspicion might be overcome;
Whereas Mr. Holst created a channel ``behind the scenes'' which complemented the 
        official negotiating channel established by the Madrid Process;
Whereas Mr. Holst was able to recognize new opportunities and seize them;
Whereas Mr. Holst has served in the Government of Norway as both Foreign 
        Minister and Defense Minister for the Labor Governments of Prime 
        Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland; and
Whereas Mr. Holst is an expert in security issues and has studied in the United 
        States at Columbia University and has been a research associate at 
        Harvard's Center for International Affairs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends Foreign Minister Holst for his vital 
        contribution to the negotiations between the Government of 
        Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization; and
            (2) honors Mr. Holst and the Government of Norway for their 
        contribution to peace in the Middle East.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
resolution to the President with the request that he further transmit 
such copy to the Government of Norway.

                                 <all>
```
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00249- CR
Ex parte Juan Valenzuela-Rodriguez

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 629 36- A, TH E H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was orig inally due J une 6, 2013. This Court’s cler k sent notice to appellant’ s counsel, L eonar d Martinez, informing him t h at the brief was overdue
. I n response , Martinez filed a motion re questing an extension of time to file the brie f, which this Court g rante d. Appellant failed to timely file a brief and has now filed a second motion reque sting an extension of time to file the brief

. Appellant’s motion for extension of t i m e t o fi le the brief is g rante d. Appellant’s counsel, L eonar d Martinez, is order ed to tender a brief in this cause no later than November 8, 2013. No further extensions will be g rante d. Fa ilure to file the brief by th at d at e wi l l result in counsel being called befor e this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating this order. I t is so ordered on this the 10th day of Oc tober, 2013.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Do Not Publish
Dear Ms. Fairchild:

Please find attached a letter from NAIMA setting forth work practices designed to reduce emissions 

during startup and shutdown of cupolas within the mineral wool insulation industry. As indicated in the 

attached letter, please do not hesitate to contact me with additional questions or clarifications.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684-0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684-0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org
# C_2016118EN.01002601.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2016 — Coca-Cola v OHIM (Shape of a contour bottle without fluting)

(Case T-411/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a contour bottle without fluting - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2014 (Case R 540/2013-2), concerning proceedings for the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a contour bottle.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Coca-Cola Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

1

---
#### § 1.6035-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the captions contained in §§ 1.6035-1 and 1.6035-2.

## § 1.6035-1 Basis information to persons acquiring property from decedent.

(a) Overview.

(b) Applicability of section 6035 reporting requirements.

(1) In general.

(2) Executor(s) subject to section 6035 reporting requirements.

(3) Examples.

(c) Required Information Return and Statement(s).

(1) Required Information Return.

(2) Required Statement(s).

(3) Due dates.

(4) Acquiring an interest in property.

(5) Option to furnish Statement(s) prior to the acquisition of property by a beneficiary.

(6) Example.

(d) Duty to supplement.

(1) Duty to supplement to report changes to the information reported on the Information Return or Statement(s).

(2) Changes requiring supplemental reporting.

(3) Exceptions; no duty to supplement despite certain changes.

(4) Due date of supplemental reporting.

(5) Duration of duty to supplement.

(6) Examples.

(e) Property for which reporting is required.

(1) In general.

(2) Examples.

(f) Excepted property requiring only limited reporting.

(1) Excepted property.

(2) List of excepted property.

(3) United States dollars defined.

(4) Examples.

(g) Beneficiaries.

(1) In general.

(2) Required Statement to beneficiary trust.

(3) Required Statement to the holder of a split interest in property, not in trust.

(4) Reporting for a missing beneficiary.

(h) Reporting requirements applicable to trustees.

(1) Circumstances under which trustees of beneficiary trusts and other trusts are subject to reporting.

(2) Required reporting.

(3) Example.

(i) Penalties.

(j) Applicability date.

## § 1.6035-2 Transitional relief.

(a) Statements due before June 30, 2016.

(b) Applicability date.

[T.D. 9991, 89 FR 76379, Sept. 17, 2024]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 80 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 To designate the week of April 17-24, 1994, as ``Nancy Moore Thurmond 
           National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week''.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 80

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To designate the week of April 17-24, 1994, as ``Nancy Moore Thurmond 
           National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week''.

Whereas Nancy Moore Thurmond was suddenly taken from us in the prime of her 
        life;
Whereas in an attempt to honor those causes for which Nancy Moore Thurmond was 
        associated, namely the championing of children's causes;
Whereas a new patient is added to the national patient waiting list for an organ 
        transplant every 20 minutes;
Whereas thousands of lives are saved or significantly improved annually by organ 
        and tissue transplantation; and
Whereas increasing the number of organs which can be transplanted as well as 
        tissues would save American taxpayers millions of dollars: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week of April 17-24, 
1994, is designated ``Nancy Moore Thurmond National Organ and Tissue 
Donor Awareness Week'' and the President is authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to 
observe such week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and 
activities.

            Passed the Senate April 19, 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2010** 

**- NM** 
**- 126** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,599                   1,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,599                   1,599
<PP&E>                                         839,507                 839,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399,856                 399,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 841,806                 841,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,642                 367,642
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        11,451                  11,451
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,713                 462,713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   841,806                 841,806
<SALES>                                          4,020                  82,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,020                  82,972
<CGS>                                            1,000                  74,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,150               2,184,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                   2,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (123,130)             (2,103,677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (123,130)             (2,103,677)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (123,130)             (2,103,677)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)                  (0.21)


</TABLE>
#### Frank M. Ross *v.*Harold E. Hegstrom, State Jail Administrator

Submitted April 1

decided April *4,*1968

*Joseph D. Harbaugh,*chief public defender, in support of the motion.

The motion hy the plaintiff to expedite his appeal from the Superior Court in Middlesex County and to defer the printing of briefs is denied.
§ 1.511-3 Provisions generally applicable to the tax on unrelated business income. ( a ) *Assessment and collections.* Since the taxes imposed by section 511 are taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Code, all provisions of law and of the regulations applicable to the taxes imposed by subtitle A are applicable to the assessment and collection of the taxes imposed by section 511. Organizations subject to the tax imposed by section 511(a)(1) are subject to the same provisions, including penalties, as are provided in the case of the income tax of other corporations. In the case of a trust subject to the tax imposed by section 511(b)(1), the fiduciaries for such trust are subject to the same provisions, including penalties, as are applicable to fiduciaries in the case of the income tax of other trusts. See section 6151, *et seq.,* and the regulations prescribed thereunder, for provisions relating to payment of tax.
( b ) *Returns.* For requirements of filing annual returns with respect to unrelated business taxable income by organizations subject to the tax on such income, see section 6012, paragraph (e) of § 1.6012-2, and paragraph (a)(5) of § 1.6012-3.
( c ) *Taxable years, method of accounting, etc.* The taxable year (fiscal year or calendar year, as the case may be) of an organization shall be determined without regard to the fact that such organization may have been exempt from tax during any prior period. See sections 441 and 446, and the regulations thereunder in this part, and section 7701 and the regulations in part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). Similarly, in computing unrelated business taxable income, the determination of the taxable year for which an item of income or expense is taken into account shall be made under the provisions of sections 441, 446, 451, and 461, and the regulations thereunder, whether or not the item arose during a taxable year beginning before, on, or after the effective date of the provisions imposing a tax upon unrelated business taxable income. If a method for treating bad debts was selected in a return of income (other than an information return) for a previous taxable year, the taxpayer must follow such method in its returns under section 511, unless such method is changed in accordance with the provisions of § 1.166-1. A taxpayer which has not previously selected a method for treating bad debts may, in its first return under section 511, exercise the option granted in § 1.166-1.
( d ) *Foreign tax credit.* See section 515 for provisions applicable to the credit for foreign taxes provided in section 901.
exv4w2



 





Exhibit 4.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

ENTONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

2003 STOCK PLAN




     This Amendment is adopted with respect to that certain Entone Technologies, Inc. 2003 Stock
Plan (the “Plan”), as adopted by the Board of Directors of Entone Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on October 10, 2003, and provides as follows:



     1. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Amendment is June 1, 2006.



     2. Amendment. Section 6(e) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:




“Change in Control. If the Company undergoes a Change in Control,
then except as may be otherwise provided in the Stock Option
Agreement as approved by the Board of Directors, to the extent the
Option is not yet exercisable and is not assumed by the continuing
or surviving entity, it shall become exercisable in full as of the
date such Change in Control is consummated.”



     3. Continuing Effect. Except as provided in Section 2 above, all terms and
conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Assistant Secretary of the Company certifies that the
foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on June 1, 2006.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Terence M. Kelly
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	TERENCE M. KELLY, Assistant Secretary







1
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-13-00282-CV

Trial Court No. 11-CV-31,845

Sherilyn Alexander Landers and Billye C. Alexander, Heirs of W. W.

Alexander and Jerrell Fleming, Sharon Fleming, LaVey Alexander and

Dianne Batson

Vs.

Richard Livingston and Dianne Livingston

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Clerk's record

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Filing

Reporter's record

Indigent

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$396.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00

$20.00

$100.00

$190.15

$25.00

$20.00

$50.00

Melissa Ray

Phillip Danks

Phillip Danks

Phillip Danks

Unknown

Bull & Barrett

Bull & Barrett

Bull & Barrett

Bull & Barrett

Phillip A. Danks

Jerrell & Sharon Fleming

Phillip A. Danks

Phillip A. Danks

Phillip A. Danks

TOTAL: $1,016.15

FILE COPY
I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 16th day of March 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
#### Alan Kniznik, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, Appellee, v. Enid Quick, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner, Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,748.

First District, Third Division.

March 6, 1969.

*89Synek, Bishart *&*Solomon, of Chicago (Henry T. Synek, of counsel), for appellant.

Maurice L. Marcus and Melvin A. Weinstein, of Chicago, for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE SCHWARTZ

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a petition for habeas corpus the petitioner alleged that he was entitled to the custody of his minor son Richard Jay Kniznik by virtue of a Massachusetts divorce decree and that Richard was being unlawfully detained by the respondent in her home in Homewood, Illinois. Respondent filed a cross-petition in which she asked the court to modify the Massachusetts decree to change custody from the petitioner to herself. The court entered an order granting the petition for habeas corpus and denying the cross-petition for modification of the decree. Respondent has appealed from that order to this court.

Neither the respondent nor the petitioner has questioned the jurisdiction of this court to review an order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding. We find nevertheless that the determination of that issue is a prerequisite to our taking jurisdiction. Supreme Court Rule 302(a) provides: *90The court interpreted this rule in People ex rel. Bryant v. Williams, 68 Ill App2d 334, 216 NE2d 262, and held that “the new Judicial Article and the Supreme Court Rules indicate that jurisdiction in *all*habeas corpus proceedings, original and on appeal, has been withheld from this court without exception.” That case also involved child custody. The Supreme Court apparently agreed since it accepted the transfer of the case from the Appellate Court. People ex rel. Bryant v. Williams, 35 Ill 2d 372, 220 NE2d 177.

> *89“(A) Appeals from the final judgments of circuit courts shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court ... (3) in cases of habeas corpus. . . .”

*90Our court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the instant case and it is transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 365.

Appeal transferred to the Illinois Supreme Court.

SULLIVAN, P. J. and DEMPSEY, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8040 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8040

   To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal 
 Service processing and distribution center in Postal Service regions 
  that have failed to meet certain delivery standards, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 2024

 Ms. Budzinski (for herself and Mr. Bergman) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal 
 Service processing and distribution center in Postal Service regions 
  that have failed to meet certain delivery standards, 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. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATING POSTAL SERVICE 
              PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.

    During any calendar year, the United States Postal Service may not 
close, consolidate, or otherwise move any operations or services from 
any Postal Service processing and distribution center located within 
any Postal Service region that, during anytime within the immediately 
preceding calendar year, failed to meet the Postal Service's fiscal 
year 2023 performance plan target of--
            (1) at least 93 percent on-time delivery rate for two-day 
        single first-class mail; and
            (2) at least 90.3 percent on-time delivery rate for three 
        to five-day first-class mail.
                                 <all>
```