alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3118

AN ACT

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building

and the Wilbur Wright Federal Building inWashington, District of Columbia.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3118

AN ACT

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the

Wilbur Wright Federal Building in Washington, District

of Columbia.

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

•HR 3118 EH

1 SECTION 1. ORVILLE WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at

3 800 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington,

4 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Orville Wright Federal Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

8 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection

9 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Orville

10 Wright Federal Building’’.

11 SEC. 2. WILBUR WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING.

12 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at

13 600 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington,

14 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as

15 the ‘‘Wilbur Wright Federal Building’’.

16 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg17 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

18 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection

19 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wilbur

20 Wright Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 4,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2016457EN.01001201.xml

| 8.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 457/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 457/12

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

of 7 October 2015

in Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15,

Financial Services and Compensation Scheme Limited v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund and De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund

(2016/C 457/09)

Requests to the Court from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) for Advisory Opinions under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, the President of the Court made an Order of 7 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur

Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15 are removed from the Register.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
     CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EDISON CONTROL CORPORATION  AS OF 
     AND FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
     ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,163,004
<SECURITIES>                                     2,960,817
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,063,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                       345,184
<INVENTORY>                                      6,907,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,677,506
<PP&E>                                          10,030,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,485,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,410,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,149,875
<BONDS>                                         13,822,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            23,469
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,745,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,741,050
<SALES>                                         20,106,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,106,180
<CGS>                                           12,815,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,703,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,011,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    54,375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 725,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,575,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                       686,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                889,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       899,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .31
        


</TABLE>
### 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. 03-10-00458- CV

John S tritz inger, Appellant

v. Kat herine Wright, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 345 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 04- 0046 90, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
In this cause , J ohn Str itz inge r appea led from a J uly 9, 2010, “Or der Gra nting Kather ine Wright’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Orde r” and a J uly 21, 2010, “Or der RequiringJ ohn Stritz inge r to Seek Court Approva l Prior to Requesting I ssuance of a Subpoena .” Appellee Katherine Wright filed a motion to dismiss thi s ap p eal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, urg ing that neither of the order s on appea l is final and appea lable and that the leg islature has not g rante d this Court appellate jurisdiction over these ty pes of interlocutory order s. Stritz inge r has filed a series of motions in which he has at times reque sted dismiss al, and at times opposed it.

First, Stritz inge r filed a motion to dismiss his appea l, explaining that “such matter is curr ently bei n g ad dresse d with the trial court.” He further reque sted that we seal the appellaterec ord in this cause . Wright opposed Stritz inge r’s motion to se al. Subsequently , Stritz inge r filed 1

a motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss , as well as a motion to consolidate this ca u s e with another cause , 03-10-00651 -C V, in which Stritz inge r has appea led another interlocutory district court order from the same underly i ng child-custody proce eding

. There afte r, Stritz inge r
reve rsed course and filed a “F irst Amende d M o t i on to Dismiss”in which he ag ain seeks to voluntarily

dismiss this appeal a

nd to seal the re cord. We g rant Stritz inge r’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss to the extent of dismiss ing his appea l in Cause No. 03-10-00458- CV, see Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a) (1), but deny his reque st to seal the re cord. We dismiss as moot the parties’ other pendingmotions i n this cause.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: De cembe r 15, 2010

T h i s motion also reque sted that we seal the rec ords in two other of his appea ls that we 1 have dismiss ed for want of subject-matter jurisdictio n , C ause Nos. 03-10-00456- CV and -00457. Stritz eng er has also reque sted the same relief via separ ate motions filed in eac h of those cause s. We have disposed of

all of his sealingmotions pertaining to 03- 10-00456-CV and -00457 by separ ate order

. 2
SCPW-20-0000560
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ISAIAH W. MCCOY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE TODD W. EDDDINS, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit, State of Hawai # i, Respondent Judge, and
STATE OF HAWAI # I and FRANCIS SEQUEIRA, Warden, O # ahu Community Correctional Center, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 1CPC-19-0001279)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kuriyama, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Isaiah W. McCoy’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on October 29, 2020, the amendments, and the record, it cannot be said that the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion in revoking bail under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, or that petitioner is entitled to the Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000560 06-NOV-2020 01:09 PM Dkt. 35 ODDPrequested extraordinary relief from this court. See, e.g., HRS

§§ 804-3(b) and 807-7.3 ; Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the second amendment to the petition for writ of habeas corpus are denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 6, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Christine E. Kuriyama

2
§ 367.14 Responses. ( a ) The contractor will have 15 days from the date of the notice within which to respond.
( b ) The response shall be in writing and may include: information and argument in opposition to the proposed exclusion and/or suspension, including any additional specific information pertaining to the possible causes for exclusion; and information and argument in mitigation of the proposed period of exclusion.
( c ) The response may request a meeting with an FDIC official identified in the notice to permit the contractor to discuss issues of fact or law relating to the suspension and/or proposed exclusion or to otherwise resolve the pending matters. ( 1 ) Any such meetings between a contractor and FDIC shall take such form as the FDIC deems appropriate.
( 2 ) In cases of suspensions, no meeting will be held where a representative of the Department of Justice has advised in writing that the substantial interests of the Government would be prejudiced by such a meeting and the Ethics Counselor determines that a suspension is based on the same facts as pending or contemplated legal proceedings referenced by the representative of the Department of Justice.
( d ) Failure to respond to the notice shall be deemed an admission of the existence of the cause(s) for suspension and/or exclusion set forth in the notice and an acceptance of the period of exclusion proposed therein. In such circumstances, the FDIC may proceed to a final decision without further proceedings.
( e ) Where a contractor has received more than one notice, the FDIC may consolidate the pending proceedings, including the scheduling of any meetings, in accordance with this section.
# C_2015282EN.01000301.xml

| 27.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/3

---

No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2015/C 282/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 20 May 2015 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 77190 |
| Decision No | : | 206/15/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Transmission of electricity to PCC at Bakki |
| Legal basis | : | Transmission agreement signed between PCC and the Icelandic TSO- Landsnet |
| Type of measure | : | No State aid |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

20 May 2015

Case No

Case No

:

77190

Decision No

Decision No

:

206/15/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Transmission of electricity to PCC at Bakki

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Transmission agreement signed between PCC and the Icelandic TSO- Landsnet

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

No State aid

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 316 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 316

To eliminate certain restrictions on the availability of credits under 
  title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for the use of biodiesel 
                     fuel, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

  Mr. Shimkus (for himself, Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Johnson of 
   Illinois, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Lipinski) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate certain restrictions on the availability of credits under 
  title III of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for the use of biodiesel 
                     fuel, 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. BIODIESEL FUEL USE CREDITS.

     Section 312 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``of Credits'' and all that follows 
                through ``At the request'' and inserting ``of 
                Credits.--At the request''; and
                    (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) by striking ``not'' in the subsection heading; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``not''.

SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLE MARKET STUDY AND REPORT.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a thorough study 
to determine--
            (1) the availability and cost of light duty motor vehicles 
        that qualify as alternative fueled vehicles for purposes of 
        title V of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; and
            (2) the availability and cost of fuels that qualify as 
        alternative fuels for purposes of title V of the Energy Policy 
        Act of 1992.
    (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to 
the Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under 
subsection (a), including any legislative recommendations.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017313EN.01000401.xml

| 21.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 313/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 27 June 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 80858 |
| Decision No | : | 112/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | Municipality of Trondheim |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Ranheim Energi AS |
| Legal basis | : | The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 248/11/COL |
| Type of measure | : | Aid based on the Energy Fund scheme, subject to individual notification |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | 172 000 000 NOK |
| Intensity | : | 40,7 % |
| Duration | : | Aid will be distributed in the period 2017-2019 |
| Economic sectors | : | Steam and air conditioning supply |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Brochs gate 2 |
| NO-7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

27 June 2017

Case No

Case No

:

80858

Decision No

Decision No

:

112/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

Region

:

Municipality of Trondheim

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Ranheim Energi AS

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 248/11/COL

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Aid based on the Energy Fund scheme, subject to individual notification

Objective

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

172 000 000 NOK

Intensity

Intensity

:

40,7 %

Duration

Duration

:

Aid will be distributed in the period 2017-2019

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Steam and air conditioning supply

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Brochs gate 2

NO-7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
# C_2018046EN.01000302.xml

| 8.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/3

---

Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(2018/C 46/04)

| Member State | Norway |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Værøy — Bodø v.v. |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 1 August 2019 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained | Ministry of Transport and Communications |
| PO Box 8010 Dep |
| N-0030 OSLO |
| NORWAY |
| Tel. +47 22248353 |
| Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no |
| https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud |

Member State

Norway

Route concerned

Værøy — Bodø v.v.

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

1 August 2019

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained

Ministry of Transport and Communications

PO Box 8010 Dep

N-0030 OSLO

NORWAY

Tel. +47 22248353

Email: postmottak@sd.dep.no

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00610

- CV

Michael P. GEARY, Indepe ndent Executor of the Estate of Joseph William Geary, Jr., Deceased and Falcon Energy, Inc.

, Appellant s

v.

TOW BOW RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Two Bow Management, LC and Ronald L. Toms, Individually, Appellee s

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Be xar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 03609 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The App ellees ’ Second Motion to Extend Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to May 6, 2019. Further requests for extension of time in which to file appellees’ brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Irene Rios

, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of April, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000796124
<NAME>                        Eldorado Artesian Springs Inc
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         277,883
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  847,197
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    189,703
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,341,745
<PP&E>                                         4,070,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,275,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,332,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          627,367
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,995
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,382,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,332,068
<SALES>                                        1,453,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,453,260
<CGS>                                          256,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  256,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,080,316
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                80,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                   28,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            52,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   52,522
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02





</TABLE>