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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 852 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 852

   To deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2007

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine.

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

SECTION 1. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE.

    The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine, authorized by 
the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, chapter 
95), is not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1977.2 Purpose of this part.

The purpose of this part is to make available in one place interpretations of the various provisions of section 11(c) of the Act which will guide the Secretary of Labor in the performance of his duties thereunder unless and until otherwise directed by authoritative decisions of the courts, or concluding, upon reexamination of an interpretation, that it is incorrect.
§ 2200.33 Notices of contest. Within 15 working days after receipt of any of the following notices, the Secretary shall notify the Commission of the receipt in writing and shall promptly furnish to the Executive Secretary of the Commission the original of any documents or records filed by the contesting party and copies of all other documents or records relevant to the contest: ( a ) Notification that the employer intends to contest a citation or proposed penalty under section 10(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 659(a); or
( b ) Notification that the employer wishes to contest a notice of a failure to abate or a proposed penalty under section 10(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 659(b); or
( c ) A notice of contest filed by an employee or representative of employees with respect to the reasonableness of the abatement period under section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 659(c).
Note 1 to § 2200.33 :
Failure to meet the 15-working day deadline to file a notice of contest results in the citation or notification of failure to abate becoming a final order of the Commission. Under extraordinary circumstances, the cited employer, an affected employee, or an authorized employee representative may seek relief from the final order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, by promptly filing a request for such relief with the Commission's Executive Secretary, One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 980, Washington, DC 20036-3457. *See Brancifort Builders, Inc.,* 9 BNA OSHC 2113, 2116-17 (1981).
#### § 2.23 Procedure where a decision concerning a demand is not made prior to the time a response to the demand is required.

If the response to the demand is required before the instructions from the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor are received, a Department attorney or other government attorney designated for the purpose shall appear with the employee or former employee of the Department upon whom the demand has been made, and shall furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the regulations contained in this subpart and inform the court or other authority that the demand has been, or is being, as the case may be, referred for the prompt consideration of the appropriate Deputy Solicitor of Labor and shall respectfully request the court or other authority to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested instructions.
13193

#### ATLANTIC BANK & TRUST CO. v. NEELEY, RECEIVER

(159 S. E., 495)

*76*Messrs. Kearse &*Kearse, for appellant,

*Mr. Adam H.*Moss, for respondent

July 3, 1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

*77The decision of this Court in the case of *Ex Parte Wachovia Bank (Nettles v. Bank),*160 S. C., 104, 158 S. E., 214, is conclusive against the right of the respondent bank tó priority in the distribution of the assets of the insolvent bank. The Court *sua sponte*will take notice of the fact that the Act of 1927 (Act April 26, 1927 [35 St. at Large, p. 369]), upon which the plaintiff relies, was declared unconstitutional in the case cited. The order appealed from, which will be reported, is accordingly reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Brease, and Messrs. Justices Stabler and Carter concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 981 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 981

To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
    waive the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief 
                              assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2007

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
    waive the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief 
                              assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Catastrophic Disaster Recovery 
Enhancement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``applicable period'' means the period 
        beginning on August 29, 2005, and ending on October 24, 2005; 
        and
            (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
        and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
    (b) Waiver of Prohibition on Duplication of Certain Benefits.--In 
providing assistance under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 7(b) of the 
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)), for any major disaster declared 
during the applicable period, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall waive the prohibition on the duplication of 
benefits, including whether damage or destruction has been compensated 
for by, credit is available from, activities are reimbursable through, 
or funds have been made available from any other source.
    (c) Applicability and Retroactivity for Victims of Hurricanes 
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.--This section shall apply to any assistance 
under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) 
provided on or after August 29, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 26, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50773 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO RAMIREZ-LEIJA, also known as Jerry Ramirez, also known as Geraldo Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant,

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-214-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court appointed counsel for Gerardo Ramirez-Leija has moved for leave to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has responded to counsel’s motion and brief, asking the court to consider the issue raised by counsel, challenging the prior deportation upon which his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction is based, challenging the districtNo. 02-50773 -2- court’s use of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) in calculating his sentence, and arguing that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. Ramirez’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and the issues raised by Ramirez discloses no nonfrivolous appellate issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
[No. 26584-2-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jonathan Edward Sick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 00-1-01222-9, Daniel J. Berschauer, J., entered October 27, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Quinn-Brintnall, JJ.
#### § 61.319 [Reserved]
Exhibit-21




                LACLEDE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                         PERCENT OF
                                                       VOTING STOCK
                                                           OWNED
                                                       ------------



Subsidiaries of Laclede Gas Company (Parent)

   Laclede Pipeline Company                                 100%
   Laclede Investment Corporation*                          100%
   Laclede Development Company**                            100%

  *Subsidiary Company of Laclede Investment Corporation
       Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                       100%
   Subsidiary Company of Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.     100%
       Laclede Gas Family Services, Inc.
***Subsidiary Company of Laclede Development Company
       Laclede Venture Corp.                                100%

All of the above corporations have been organized under the laws of the
State of Missouri.
























                                 101
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00265

- CV

Maria Juanita GOMEZ

, Appellant

v.

HILLCREST INN

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19226C

Honorable Susan Harris, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. No costs of appeal are ordered against Appellant Maria Juanita

Gomez.

SIGNED September 18, 2019.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice
### ho&QGoJaig^

.^Sie^^yL^ £*



### -/fesL\£s- So C&ar-e-G—

/L/0 Serfs<?,(/s^?ju&£ d/_/«^^W. /njf-ev-^£r<&£ as /rg/__, H'SCL t£* 

# 5!&tk COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS OCT 05'm 

### AbelAsofeCiork, ust— -/(Zu£-V?£t--j**L4L*z*yj£-
-&f-e_ 

### -/£ej?-,- 1*44^ _^<__ 

### ^_L«c^— 

### _,^£^ks 'jCjl&jiJ. ^feS-Oyre 

### J^X'^/^t—A^e—r-Sj^L £et7-iS/cir^***-. /^-s **£*?J?LuP''<s<J-

^^/tes/st/i/. /Or? y^e/vs £>±jc.iit3-yiA—«*-* 'acy^rc*^ /^g&c. yr>s-s?i£ ^^rU ' 

### rffffas 1 / /** y'//~i£><<ys'o



### j%,£ f5 SfXtf/* j^QAjs y^^c/y^ - <?*-* (za.r^^iU.iiCa.<L*Lts^Ay C&JJ yCs^ Harris- CnpA/./y Aid fttvi'o umoS 0ccs/^ <?styy<*^s /netfyco-s '-Z^e^ZUK. vr«£.:s_x*5^ 

### SeYuayS

### yV/- <J^SK/A_- Se C<*J Ci/<?s<yyr-se.JU f><7<scS Aft /^af.<s^*rt^X^'S 

## y^yy^c^^^c^^a-^^uy^^^y^^'*ras ^Sx/J^MSVJL _i£ '-<£)- '/*'<?<& sw<?s(yy<o - y? - 

### 'rrt y^^s**^ y^. <?<i ,<<?*/*/ s-/C> y4*r- y&^ /^r^cG^ -J'/y<ry*i/£c> S%f/~tX- y+7*3rS-r ?/^<~£ X^Cf^ £- ^<ty-^y^- ft- y&-r 

## c^L ^<Zy0—/£iyy£ci'-&'<y-'iz-< -/s-a- 

### £/.smzn os: A-? o S&<Ze/<Lsc/<£-c-/dS. c£z-f 

### fit?/-',?r<x-J>/e <&&*/<7C&s 

## Qj>/*><?/ se yfec/Sct^, a //?\/<xr ts/^? # c/'U> fiJUcwo JcVcvt7 !Jok/Q. /or ?"£ 66/y S~e^r fL^r /i<<y<£y~<9 Com n.&**&*/<!-

i -•• /' yy TMiii. 

## '/' en?. sAra*. Pt-cj^^yy&r/£\ a cs*y St>y-^c£c>« r^-— f^ter/-> ccx$. 

# £v>cO&/£Jua^ y^^/x_

### W—A fisc <&«<-/kc3 Car y^r^cc < ^A/^-g /o_^_ rs/ria. y<a-AS.£>-&-y-t\ic<^5— e SS 

### J&. j^Ay_s>-rr-ry-£yr^i /L/<^<£&y£sx<zL^ ^ 

### @ro jU* rici ^ 5i'/yi ,°/*tr- &_y_X^ys /r> eXXr^Xo /As y&. C<?/c/.s/^(;<1,/9/o e* 

### ft//yr-e r?% sr-s <* Aes^^riL^ ./^y/y^^G^ V^ M& /sysyZ's* ys o^s r/ysc ^yt rr,&^><> .(LsLL



### _/?ca^/2j 'ot^-A^J* _CL y/t/ocejs&o <rj>*c cx^s^xy/izy^rt/^ /2AySr/v<f'r-^c/Le_* jUo ^gy 

# fM/"s

'/>C J 

### Ta</ ^£l3-<?—£ZAL WeCyee? y^ts/lee^- ?^j___^.^^e<^<Lc^/<-^:_2 X- y£?ty\c?_s- <?tuy^tsy** <rgr*e., 

### Z/e' fiy&c/t/,^ 4?j5<yejcycA-. <sCr-//ZA4siT ?//# 

### Po/U yrSy*t0-sjCy /# r S u
il^G-o

### ryys<- <ys/i '/s^&/—^<> _s sr?s,t' y^cy*^ '&

6f<r Vj sS(rn ^tx^L r/y <?_£? ^ /^?ir fjz y*<- (SdLU^ £Z^ 

### finunra^m-e Abe./ A&?. •^/g^_ 

### e% /?ery> Set @£>/\AA~rc *'s> ^
Oj'o-s \y<rsvr///Z<^ ct o^ y^jf/ //j 'a-S yesV, ^or- -SV y^^k V] S <0 ^ ^ \>i V) •- • - o 

### -£*

C QC,^

\ o •$ <s9
5 \^o 

### X^ o

- .j& -... a- £.,:*TM. &-—

<3

<C^3> a.) o ui O (v)
[No. 49940-8-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Adam Robert Zuehlke, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 01-1-00450-9, Michael F. Moynihan, J., entered January 10, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 2700.29 Answer.

A party against whom a petition for assessment of penalty is filed shall file an answer within 30 days after service of the petition for assessment of penalty. An answer shall include a short and plain statement responding to each allegation of the petition.
| (1)   | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Centracan Incorporated. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 23, 2010 |   | /s/ Boris Rubizhevsky        |   |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Boris Rubizhevsky            |   |
|                  |   | Principal Accounting Officer |   |
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July16, 2010



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
[No. 20636-0-III.

Division Three.

October 29, 2002.]

#### The City of Spokane, *Respondent,*v. H. Neil Von Holt, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 00-2-04630-2, Salvatore F. Cozza, J., entered October 26, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
#### DADE COUNTY v WARD

Case Nos. 86-345 AP, 86-397 AP (County Court Case No. 86-6012CC25)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

May 20, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney, and Thomas H. Robertson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.

Mary A. Webster, Legal Services of Greater Miami, for appellee.

Before BARAD, GREENBAUM, DONNER, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This court finds that the order issued by the lower court directing both parties to perform certain tasks was in the form of a mandatory injunction. A mandatory injunction commands acts to be done or undone and may require the performance of some affirmative acts. *Zetrouer v. Zetrouer,*103 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1925). In so doing, the lower court acted beyond the scope of its jurisdictional powers. Article V, § 20.3, Florida Constitution.

This tribunal notes the lower court’s concern for the welfare of the *166appellee and her children, however, a court cannot issue an order considered to be in the best interest of social justice without regard to established law. *Flagler v. Flagler, 95*So.2d 592 (Fla. 1955). The order of the lower court is therefore quashed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
§ 2200.70 Exhibits. ( a ) *Marking exhibits.* All exhibits offered in evidence by a party shall be marked for identification before or during the hearing. Exhibits shall be marked with the case docket number, with a designation identifying the party or intervenor offering the exhibit, and numbered consecutively.
( b ) *Removal or substitution of exhibits in evidence.* Unless the Judge finds it impractical, a copy of each exhibit shall be given to the other parties and intervenors. A party may remove an exhibit from the official record during the hearing or at the conclusion of the hearing only upon permission of the Judge. The Judge, in the Judge's discretion, may permit the substitution of a duplicate for any original document offered into evidence.
( c ) *Reasons for denial of admitting exhibit.* A Judge may, in the Judge's discretion, deny the admission of any exhibit because of its excessive size, weight, or other characteristic that prohibits its convenient transportation and storage. A party may offer into evidence photographs, models, or other representations of any such exhibit.
( d ) *Rejected exhibits.* All exhibits offered but denied admission into evidence, except exhibits referred to in paragraph (c) of this section, shall be placed in a separate file designated for rejected exhibits.
( e ) *Return of physical exhibits.* A party may on motion request the return of a physical exhibit within 30 days after expiration of the time for filing a petition for review of a Commission final order in a United States Court of Appeals under section 11 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660, or within 30 days after completion of any proceedings initiated in a Court of Appeals. The motion shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary and provide supporting reasons. The exhibit shall be returned if the Executive Secretary determines that it is no longer necessary for use in any Commission proceeding.
( f ) *Request for custody of physical exhibit.* Any person may on motion to the Executive Secretary request custody of a physical exhibit for use in any court or tribunal. The motion shall state the reasons for the request and the duration of custody requested. If the exhibit has been admitted in a pending Commission case, the motion shall be served on all parties to the proceeding. Any person granted custody of an exhibit shall inform the Executive Secretary of the status every 6 months (*e.g.,* 6 months after January 15 would be July 15) of the person's continuing need for the exhibit and return the exhibit after completion of the proceeding.
( g ) *Disposal of physical exhibit.* Any physical exhibit may be disposed of by the Commission's Executive Secretary subject to the requirements of the National Archives and Records Administration.
[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019, as amended at 87 FR 8949, Feb. 17, 2022]
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1612 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1612

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1612/98 of 24 July 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking over of cereals by intervention agencies **

*
Official Journal L 209 , 25/07/1998 P. 0025 - 0025 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1612/98 of 24 July 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking over of cereals by intervention agencies

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1424/98 (4), lays down the conditions for taking over cereals into intervention;

Whereas implementation from the 1993/94 marketing year of the reform of the common agricultural policy in the cereals sector may lead to difficulties for producers of certain cereals in certain areas of the Community; whereas, to lessen the impact of these mechanisms on the income of the said producers, provision should be made for exemptions from certain provisions relating to quality once again in the 1998/99 marketing year, as was done in 1997/98;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The text of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 is replaced by the following:

'4. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, and for the 1998/99 marketing year:

- at the request of the Member State, a decision shall be taken in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, to fix the maximum moisture content at 15 % for cereals offered for intervention with the exception of maize and sorghum,

- the reduction provided for in the case of barley of a specific weight less than 64 kg/hl referred to in Annex II, Table III shall not apply.`

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 1 July 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.

(3) OJ L 74, 20. 3. 1992, p. 18.

(4) OJ L 190, 4. 7. 1998, p. 14.