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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 299 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 299

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

Mr. King of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GERARD A. FIORENZA POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza 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 Gerard A. 
Fiorenza Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018422EN.01000901.xml

| 22.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 October 2017

in Case E-21/16

Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG

(Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC — Legal expenses insurance — Free choice of lawyer)

(2018/C 422/07)

In Case E-21/16, Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 October 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC precludes terms and conditions in a legal expenses insurance contract that release the insurance company from its obligations under the contract if the insured person mandates an attorney to represent his interests, without the consent of the company, at a point in time when the insured person would be entitled to make a claim under the contract.

---
42554.

#### BENECKE v. BOYER.

Per Curiam.

The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant failed to file the transcript of the evidence within thirty days after filing the notice of appeal, and failed to apply to the trial judge for an extension of time for filing the transcript. The record is *100witness to the truth of the facts asserted in the motion and shows that the trial judge did not exercise his discretion by entering an order granting an extension. See *Code Ann.*§§ 6-804, 6-806.

*Bell, P. J., Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

Argued January 6, 1967

Decided January 25, 1967.

*George & George, William■ V. George,*for appellant.

*Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick,*for appellee.

Under the facts recited in the motion as borne out by the record “the present case is one that this court can not consider because of the failure to follow the mandatory provisions of the Appellate Practice Act regarding the filing of the transcript.” *Davis v. Davis,*222 Ga. 579 (151 SE2d 123).

The clear mandate of the *Davis*case is not affected by the affidavit of the court reporter in this case containing the averment: “That due to an unusually large volume of orders for court transcripts on motions for new trial, as well as to the large number of cases requiring his presence in court, the transcript in the above stated case was not filed within the statutory time limit. That the responsibility for the delayed and late filing of said transcript rests upon this affiant alone, and that no fault or blame in this respect should be attached or imputed to counsel for plaintiff in error, counsel for defendant in error, or to any of the parties at interest in said case.”

The appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is

*Dismissed.*
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 5 0 8 9 8 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. C A R L O S M O R E N O , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 8 8

- 1

B e f o r e J O L L Y , O W E N , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t C a r l o s M o r e n o h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 1 1 )

. M o r e n o h a s n o t f

i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f a n d t h e

r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n
. W e c o n c u r w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s

a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 19 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-50898 Document: 00511450044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011N o
. 0 9

- 5 0 8 9 8

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 09-50898 Document: 00511450044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
# C_2021426EN.01000901.xml

| 21.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 426/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 426/9

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 1 July 2021 in the case of PRA Group Europe AS v Staten v/Skatteetaten

(Case E-3/21)

(2021/C 426/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 1 July 2021 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 2 July 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of PRA Group Europe AS v Staten v/Skatteetaten on the following questions:

| 1. | Is there a restriction within the meaning of Article 31 EEA, read in conjunction with Article 34, when group contributions from Norwegian companies increase the maximum deduction for interest and thus the entitlement to deduction of interests on debt to affiliated parties under the limited interest deduction rule, a possibility which, under Norwegian tax rules, is not available for investments by or in EEA companies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a restriction within the meaning of Article 31 EEA, read in conjunction with Article 34, when group contributions from Norwegian companies increase the maximum deduction for interest and thus the entitlement to deduction of interests on debt to affiliated parties under the limited interest deduction rule, a possibility which, under Norwegian tax rules, is not available for investments by or in EEA companies?

| 2. | Is an EEA company that is in a group with a Norwegian company in a comparable situation to that of a Norwegian company that is in a group with another Norwegian company, and what significance does it have for the comparability assessment that no actual group contribution has been made from the EEA company to the Norwegian company, but rather a loan? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is an EEA company that is in a group with a Norwegian company in a comparable situation to that of a Norwegian company that is in a group with another Norwegian company, and what significance does it have for the comparability assessment that no actual group contribution has been made from the EEA company to the Norwegian company, but rather a loan?

| 3. | In the event that there is a restriction: Which reasons in the public interest may justify such a restriction? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that there is a restriction: Which reasons in the public interest may justify such a restriction?

---
# Advanced Flight Maneuvers ( 

# * * * ) D

; 

# , Fly a circle and keep the aircraft nose pointed towards you. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# ------------ 

# --- --


# EJ Fly a 4 point square box clockwise while keeping the aircraft nose facing in your direction. 

# 11 11

-
---- ---**-~** 

# , \ 

# , \

# : 

# t1

, 

# . , \ 

# , \ 

# , \ 

# ,. \ 

# ·-------**~** 

# ----------- 

# El Fly a 4 point square box counter-clockwise while keeping the aircraft nose facing in your direction.

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers

# <***)**~~** Fly a 4 point square box clockwise and rotate the phantom in the direction of travel.**,~** 

# ' ''' ' 

## '**------ -----------**  

# ®s s@ 

# &®$**~~** Fly a circle counter-clockwise and keep the aircraft nose pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# m Fly a circle counter-clockwise with the aircraft nose pointed at the center of the circle. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers<***) 

# D Fly a figure 8 without rotating the Phantom. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

# ~**~ -------...** **~** 

# ,'

... '+-
-· ' ,

.............J/J!IItl--

___**c."!.----- ~**  

# ,----
...

# --**~** 

# ---
......**~** 

### ,1\ \ ',



### ... 

## ,'

............ 

# ____**-----------**
Fly a Figure 8 with the aircraft nose of the Phantom pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

Fly Figure 8 patterns while experimenting with different orientations. For example, aircraft nose always pointed in a given direction or opposite/left/right the direction of travel, etc. Be sure to keep the altitude thesame and the circle as uniform as possible.

# Emergency Situations 

# D

EJ Return Home 

### & Land Mode Be sure you are in a large open area. Before you take off, make sure you have a good GPS lock by ensuring your LED indicators are flashing Green. Fly the Phantom at least 50ft away from your take off point. Turn off the Remote Controller. The Phantom will enter it's failsafe Return-To-Home Mode. Let the Phantom finish it's routine and land itselfwithin 2 meters of the take off point.



# • 15 meters



### Intercepting Return Home 

### & Land Mode Be sure you are in a large open area. Before you take off, make sure you have a good GPS lock by ensuring your LED indicators are flashing Green. Fly the Phantom 50ft away from your take off point. Turn off the Remote Controller. The Phantom will enter it's failsafe Return-To-Home Mode. When the Phantom is returning home, you can intercept RTH Mode by switching the Sl Switch from the top position to the middle or lower position, then continue flying the Phantom. 

# ltr

-**----** - ' 

# ' • 15 meters

## www.dji.com

Copyright:2014 DJIInnovations. All Rights Reserved

.
#### § 145.2 [Reserved]
*District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting

by designation.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40100

 

JOE R. STRINGER; DESIREE H. STRINGER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CENDANT MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

doing business as PHH

Mortgage Services Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

 

September 27, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER*,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

On December 22, 1999, we certified the controlling question in

this case to the Texas Supreme Court. 199 F.3d 190 (5th Cir.

1999). The question certified was:

Under the Texas Constitution, may a home equity lender

require the borrower to pay off third-party debt that is

not secured by the homestead with the proceeds of the

loan?

The Texas Supreme Court answered the question in the

affirmative in a unanimous opinion filed June 8, 2000, in turn
2

filed with this court on June 12, 2000. The Texas Supreme Court by

order of August 24, 2000, denied a motion for rehearing. That

order was filed in this court on August 28, 2000. The posed

question having been answered by a final decision of the Texas

Supreme Court, the judgment of the United States District Court

dismissing the case is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795662
<NAME> STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,948
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,157)
<INVENTORY>                                     74,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               273,208
<PP&E>                                         790,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                 392,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 779,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,922
<BONDS>                                        973,054
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           21,651
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                   (465,141)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   779,521
<SALES>                                        246,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,921
<CGS>                                          216,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)


</TABLE>
427 A.2d 239

#### Commonwealth v. Key, Appellant.

Argued June 20, 1979.

John J. Swaim, Jr., for appellant;

Steven Cooperstein, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, HOFFMAN and CATANIA, JJ.*

*

 President Judge Francis J. Catania, of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7514

ISAAC EUGENE SLAPPY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, in his official and individual

capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-1726-0-22BD)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Eugene Slappy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Slappy v. Moore, No. CA-96-

1726-0-22BD (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 1996). 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
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0557 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; State of North Dakota; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS: “Interference with Maintenance” Requirements

DATE : September 9, 2010
SUBJECT: EPA's Guidance and Supporting Docume ntation - Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register : " Approval and Promulgation of State Impl ementation Plan Revisions; State of North Dakota; Interstate Transport of Po llution for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS: “Interference with Maintenance” Requirement.
FROM: Domenico Mastrangelo, Environmental Engineer Office of Partnership and Regulatory Assistance Air and Radiation Program (8P-AR)
TO: Docket Number EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0557

CONTENTS
GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM 1. EPA – August 15, 2006: "Guidance for Stat e Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)( i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards;" signed by William Ha rnett, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
1. EPA TSD. APPENDIX A: Texas and Califor nia Maintenance-Only Monitors; Back Trajectories for all 2005-2006 Exceeda nce Days for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.
2. 2009 Preliminary Design Value Report (AMP 480) for 24-hour PM 2.5 at California2 monitoring sites. USEPA Air Qual ity System (AQS), August 27, 2010.
3. “ 

### Documentation of Future Year Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in Western States,” EPA, August 23, 2010.
§ 212.5 Small market share exemption. ( a ) *Exemption.* A management interlock that is prohibited by § 212.3 is permissible, if: ( 1 ) The interlock is not prohibited by § 212.3(c); and
( 2 ) The depository organizations (and their depository institution affiliates) hold, in the aggregate, no more than 20 percent of the deposits in each RMSA or community in which both depository organizations (or their depository institution affiliates) have offices. The amount of deposits shall be determined by reference to the most recent annual Summary of Deposits published by the FDIC for the RMSA or community.
( b ) *Confirmation and records.* Each depository organization must maintain records sufficient to support its determination of eligibility for the exemption under paragraph (a) of this section, and must reconfirm that determination on an annual basis.
[64 FR 51679, Sept. 24, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2957 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2957

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2003

Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Foley, 
 Mr. Sessions, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Forbes) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to facilities and services) is amended by striking subchapter 
B.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting ``and 
        chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121),''.
            (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
            (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (i) by striking ``imposed by-- and all that follows 
                through ``with respect to'' and inserting ``imposed by 
                section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', and
                    (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
            (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) is amended 
        by striking ``Communications Services and''.
            (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``4261 or 4271''.
            (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
        amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by 
        striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating subparagraph 
        (D) as subparagraph (C).
            (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered more than 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```