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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2906

To clarify that federally licensed firearms dealers may transfer firearms 

to other federally licensed firearms dealers at places other than the 

business premises specified on the license of the transferor dealer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

Mr. RENZI (for himself, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. OTTER, Mr. 

MILLER of Florida, Mr. GOODE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. HALL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To clarify that federally licensed firearms dealers may transfer firearms to other federally licensed firearms dealers 

at places other than the business premises specified on 

the license of the transferor dealer.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2906 IH 

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION THAT LICENSED FIREARMS 

2 DEALERS MAY TRANSFER FIREARMS TO 

3 OTHER LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS AT 

4 PLACES OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS PREM5 ISES SPECIFIED ON THE LICENSE OF THE 

6 TRANSFEROR DEALER. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923(j) of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘conduct ‘curios or 

9 relics’ firearms transfers’’ and inserting ‘‘conduct firearms 

10 transfers’’. 

11 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Section 923 of such 

12 title is amended by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(m) This chapter shall not be interpreted to prohibit 

14 a person licensed under this chapter from transferring a 

15 firearm to another person so licensed, at a location other 

16 than the premises from which the person is licensed to 

17 conduct business under this chapter, or to require the pay18 ment of a separate fee under this section for doing so.’’.

Æ
42490.

#### AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY v. VERMONT.

*664Submitted January 5, 1967

Decided April 27, 1967.

*Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robert S. Harkey,*for appellant.

*Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, G. Clyde Dekle, Paul E. Pressley,*for appellee.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the phrase “articles carried or held as samples or for sale” means “property owned or used by the insured of a commercial nature in the conduct of his trade, occupation, or business.” We reject this construction.

While it is the general rule that ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed most favorably to the insured, this rule has no application when the contract is unambiguous. *Hulsey v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 167, 169 (60 SE2d 353). Where the terms of an insurance policy are plain and unambiguous, the courts have no right to enlarge the contract or to make it more beneficial by construction, but must carry out the intention of the parties as expressed by the literal terms of the *665policy taken in their usual and ordinary meaning. *Golden v. National Life &c. Ins. Co.,*189 Ga. 79, 87 (5 SE2d 198, 125 ALR 838); *Prudential Ins. Co. v. Kellar,*213 Ga. 453, 458 (99 SE2d 823); *Fokes v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*59 Ga. App. 680, 681 (2 SE2d 170); *Robinson v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co.,*72 Ga. App. 19, 21 (32 SE2d 855); *Southern Indem. Co. v. Young,*102 Ga. App. 914 (1) (117 SE2d 882).

An exclusionary clause similar to the one in this case was enforced literally in Gross v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 142 Misc. 918 (256 NYC 570). See Orren v. Iowa Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 230 N.C. 618 (54 SE2d 927); Ann. 80 ALR2d 1289. Our research discloses no authority to the contrary, and plaintiff cites none.

If plaintiff was coincidentally trying to sell the diamond while utilizing it for its usual purpose of adornment, it would be an issue of fact whether the article was held for sale or primarily for another purpose. But where plaintiff was trying to sell the article and maintained no other purpose for it, it came within the exclusionary provision of the policy as a matter of law, irrespective of whether it was in any way related to plaintiff’s usual occupation or business.

The trial court erred in overruling general demurrers to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
# C_2010325EN.01002201.xml

| 2.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/22

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht dated 19 May 2010 in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung

(Case E-5/10)

2010/C 325/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 19 May 2010 from Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung, on the following questions:

| 1. | Does the Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force in Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995, constitute a (multilateral) treaty which, as a result of the prohibition of discrimination contained particularly in Article 4 thereof, prohibit an obligation to provide security for costs from being imposed on claimants who reside in another EEA Member State if claimants who reside in Liechtenstein are not obliged to provide such security for costs?
  In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force in Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995, constitute a (multilateral) treaty which, as a result of the prohibition of discrimination contained particularly in Article 4 thereof, prohibit an obligation to provide security for costs from being imposed on claimants who reside in another EEA Member State if claimants who reside in Liechtenstein are not obliged to provide such security for costs?

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | Is the provision contained in Section 57(2) point 1 of the Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure), whereby a waiver of the obligation on claimants who reside in another State to provide security is made conditional upon the possibility of enforcement in the country of residence, compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular with the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 4 thereof, insofar as it applies to claimants who reside in an EEA Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the provision contained in Section 57(2) point 1 of the Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure), whereby a waiver of the obligation on claimants who reside in another State to provide security is made conditional upon the possibility of enforcement in the country of residence, compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular with the general prohibition of discrimination under Article 4 thereof, insofar as it applies to claimants who reside in an EEA Member State?

---
#### §§ 324.13-324.19 [Reserved]
#### § 1282.18 Affordability—Income level definitions—family size not known (actual or prospective tenants).

In determining whether a rental unit is affordable where family size is not known to the Enterprise, income will be adjusted using unit size, and affordability determined as follows:

(a) *For moderate-income,* the income of prospective tenants shall not exceed the following percentages of area median income with adjustments, depending on unit size:

| Unit size | Percentage of area median income |
| --- | --- |
| Efficiency | 70 |
| 1 bedroom | 75 |
| 2 bedrooms | 90 |
| 3 bedrooms or more | \* |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| \*104% plus (12% multiplied by the number of bedrooms in excess of 3). | |

(b) *For low-income (80%),* income of prospective tenants shall not exceed the following percentages of area median income with adjustments, depending on unit size:

| Unit size | Percentage of area median income |
| --- | --- |
| Efficiency | 56 |
| 1 bedroom | 60 |
| 2 bedrooms | 72 |
| 3 bedrooms or more | \* |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| \*83.2% plus (9.6% multiplied by the number of bedrooms in excess of 3). | |

(c) *For low-income (60%),* income of prospective tenants shall not exceed the following percentages of area median income with adjustments, depending on unit size:

| Unit size | Percentage of area median income |
| --- | --- |
| Efficiency | 42 |
| 1 bedroom | 45 |
| 2 bedrooms | 54 |
| 3 bedrooms or more | \* |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| \*62.4% plus (7.2% multiplied by the number of bedrooms in excess of 3). | |

(d) *For very low-income,* income of prospective tenants shall not exceed the following percentages of area median income with adjustments, depending on unit size:

| Unit size | Percentage of area median income |
| --- | --- |
| Efficiency | 35 |
| 1 bedroom | 37.5 |
| 2 bedrooms | 45 |
| 3 bedrooms or more | \* |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| \*52% plus (6.0% multiplied by the number of bedrooms in excess of 3). | |

(e) *For extremely low-income,* income of prospective tenants shall not exceed the following percentages of area median income with adjustments, depending on unit size:

| Unit size | Percentage of area median income |
| --- | --- |
| Efficiency | 21 |
| 1 bedroom | 22.5 |
| 2 bedrooms | 27 |
| 3 bedrooms or more | \* |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| \*31.2% plus (3.6% multiplied by the number of bedrooms in excess of 3). | |
PROMISSORY NOTE

This  agreement  dated  for  reference  this  ____  day  of  ________,  2001

BETWEEN:
          UPGRADE  INTERNATIONAL  CORP.,  1411  Fourth  Ave., Suite 629, Seattle
          Washington,  98101  (hereinafter  called  "Borrower")
                                                            OF  THE  FIRST  PART

AND

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          ---------------------- (hereinafter  called  "Lender")
                                                           OF  THE  SECOND  PART


WHEREAS, borrower is desirous of borrowing and Lender is desirous of lending USD
$100,000  for  a period of 31 days, subject to the terms and conditions provided
herein.


THEREFORE  BE  IT  AGREED  THAT;

          1.   Interest will be calculated and payable upon maturity of the note
               at  a  rate of 10% per annum, and 10,000 shares will be issued as
               compensation  for  the  loan.
          2.   In  the event that the loan is not repaid on the maturity date, a
               penalty  charge  will  be  due  and  payable  as  follows;
          -    10%  of  the  unpaid  principle and interest at the maturity date
               will  be  issued  in common stock to the lender, calculated based
               upon  the  average  trading  price  of  the  common  stock of the
               borrower  on  the  loan  maturity  date.
          -    Warrants to acquire common stock will be issued equal to 12.5% of
               the  unpaid  principle  and  interest  at  the loan maturity date
               issued  at  a strike price being the average trading price of the
               borrowers  common  stock  on  the  maturity  date.
          -    Bonus  Warrants  to  acquire common stock will be issued equal to
               20%  of  the  unpaid  principle and interest at the loan maturity
               date calculated at the current market issued at a strike price of
               $6.00.
          3.   In  the event that the loan principle and interest is not repaid,
               an  additional  penalty will become due and payable every 30 days
               following  the  maturity  date.


Agreed  this  ____  day  of  ________________,  2001.


-----------------------------
Upgrade  International  Corp.


<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 12.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Eivind Reiten, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20 F of Norsk Hydro ASA; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the company and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controls over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: 24 March 2006       /s/ Eivind Reiten     Name: Eivind Reiten  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20742

Summary Calendar

CORA DORSEY, Individually and as next friend

of Reginald Dorsey, Deceased; as next friend of

Impress Reginae Dorsey, a minor child of the

decedent; TRINNIS CURTEZ DURANT; DEILASHEUN

RICHARDSON, as next friend of Dejenai Vallier,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GERALD A. GOINES, City of Houston

Police Officer; CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-2086

__________________________________________

June 12, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cora Dorsey, Deilasheun Richardson as next friend of the Dejenai Vallier, and Trinnis Durant

filed a civil rights complaint alleging that Officer Gerald Goines and the City of Houston had violated

Reginald Dors ey’s civil rights. The district court dismissed one of the claims against the City of

Houston and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims.

Plaint iffs argue that the district court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ motions

to exclude their expert. G eiserman v. MacDonald

, 893 F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1990). The plaintiffs2

were given ample time to cure the defect in their disclosure of their expert after the defect in the

disclosure was identified in the defendants’ motion to exclude. Considering all of the relevant factors,

the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert. S ee Bradley v. United States

,

866 F.2d 120, 125 (5th Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) (requiring a signed, written report by

the designated expert witness.

Plaint iffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing one of their claims under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6 ). This argument is deemed abandoned due to the plaintiffs’ failure to brief this issue

adequately. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(9)(A)

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo

. S ee Green v. Touro Infirmary

, 992 F.2d

537, 538 (5th Cir. 1993). The only specific argument raised by the plaintiffs is that they had no need

to proved a genuine issue for trial because the defendants had not met their burden of showing that

there was no genuine issue. “[W]here the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant

may merely point to an absence of evidence” in order to meet the i nit ial burden for summary

judgment. L indsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

, 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994). As the plaintiffs have

conceded that their entire case was based on the excluded expert witness, the plaintiffs have not

shown that there is a genuine issue for trial.

AFFIRMED.
§ 31.3 Affiliate transactions requirements. ( a ) *General rule.* National banks and Federal savings associations shall comply with the provisions contained in 12 CFR part 223 (Regulation W).
( b ) *Enforcement.* The Comptroller of the Currency administers and enforces affiliate transactions requirements as they apply to national banks and Federal savings associations.
( c ) *Standard for exemptions.* The OCC may, by order, exempt transactions or relationships of a national bank or Federal savings association from the requirements of section 23A and section 11 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA), as applicable, and 12 CFR part 223 if: ( 1 ) The OCC, jointly with the Federal Reserve Board, finds the exemption to be in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of section 23A or section 11 of the HOLA, as applicable; and
( 2 ) The FDIC, within 60 days of receiving notice of such joint finding, does not object in writing to the finding based on a determination that the exemption presents an unacceptable risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
( d ) *Procedures for exemptions.* A national bank or Federal savings association may request an exemption from the requirements of section 23A or section 11 of the HOLA, as applicable, and 12 CFR part 223 for a national bank or Federal savings association by submitting a written request to the Deputy Comptroller for Licensing with a copy to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank. Such a request must: ( 1 ) Describe in detail the transaction or relationship for which the national bank or Federal savings association seeks exemption;
( 2 ) Explain why the OCC should exempt the transaction or relationship;
( 3 ) Explain how the exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of section 23A or section 11 of the HOLA, as applicable; and
( 4 ) Explain why the exemption does not present an unacceptable risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
[82 FR 8109, Jan. 23, 2017]
#### DUKE et al. v. CITY OF CHECOTAH ex rel. HALL et al.

No. 31405.

June 22, 1943.

*146 P. 2d 120.*

*550White & White, of Eufaula, and Milam M. King, of Checotah, for plaintiff in error.

B. H. Tabor, of Checotah, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Various defendants appear herein as plaintiffs in error appealing from an adverse judgment of the city of Checotah ex rel. Fletcher Hall et al., obtained in the district court.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the plaintiff in error, M. Duke, failed to give notice in open court of the intention to appeal within ten days as provided by 12 O. S. 1941 § 954.

This court ordered M. Duke to respond to the motion to dismiss and none has been filed. In French v. Bragg, 177 Okla. 43, 55 P. 2d 953, we held that where a motion to dismiss has been filed and the same is supported by argument and authorities which reasonably sustain the lack of jurisdiction of this court, it is not the duty of this court .to search for some theory upon which to sustain the appeal, but that it may in its discretion dismiss the appeal. We have examined the argument and authorities cited by the defendant in error and they reasonably support the motion to dismiss.

The appeal of M. Duke is therefore dismissed.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, .and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. DAVISON, J., absent.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT .OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard. Baltimore MD 21230 MDE 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 

Martin O'Malley Robert M. Summers, Ph.D 

Governor Secretary 

Anthony G. Brown 

Lieutenant Governor 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin
 

Regional Administrator (3RAOO)
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

# 11-04 concerning adoption of the Environmental Protection Agency's Control Technique Guidelines for 

drum and pail coating. This SIP Revision includes amendments to Regulation .13 under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. 

The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on 

January 14, 2011. A public hearing was held on February 15, 2011. The action was adopted on 

April 14, 2011. The Notice of Final Action was published on May 6, 2011 and the amendments became 

effective on May 16, 2011. All administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption 

process. 

I certify that the electronic copy of this SIP submittal (enclosed) is an exact duplicate of the official hard 

copy. If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call me at (410) 537­

4187 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, at 

(410) 537-3255. 

Sincerely, 

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D 

Secretary 

RMS:dhr 

Enclosures 

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Service