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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4824

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide

separate subheadings for hair clippers used for animals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 11, 2000

Mr. SHAYS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States to provide separate subheadings for hair clippers

used for animals.

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

3 SECTION 1. HAIR CLIPPERS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 8510 of chapter 85 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking subheading 8510.20.00 and in8 serting the following, with the article description for

9 subheading 8510.20 having the same degree of in10 dentation as the article description for subheading
2

•HR 4824 IH

1 8510.10.00, and with the article descriptions for

2 subheadings 8510.20.10 and 8510.20.90 having the

3 same degree of indentation as the article description

4 for subheading 8510.90.55:

‘‘ 8510.20 Hair clippers:

8510.20.10 Hair clippers for animals for

use on the farm ................... 4% Free (A,CA,E,

IL,J,MX)

45%

8510.20.90 Other .................................... 4% Free (A,CA,E,

IL,J,MX)

45%

’’;

5 and

6 (2) by striking subheading 8510.90.30 and in7 serting the following subheadings and superior text

8 thereto, with such superior text having the same de9 gree of indentation as the article description for sub10 heading 8510.90.55:

‘‘ Parts of hair clippers:

8510.90.30 For animals for use on the farm 4% Free (A,CA,E,

IL,J,MX)

45%

8510.90.40 Other ........................................... 4% Free (A,CA,E,

IL,J,MX)

45%

’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

12 this section shall apply with respect to articles entered,

13 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

14 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER TO R EINSTATE A PPEAL

Appellate case name: Ernest Theophilus Quimby IV v. Jessica Yvette Quimby

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 705

- CV

Trial court case number: 17FD3360

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Galveston County

We withdraw our February 5 , 201 9 opinion and judgment and reinstate this case on the

Court’s active docket.

Further, on October 30, 2018, appellant, Ernest Theophilus Quimby IV, filed his appellant’s brief. A ppellee, Jessica Yvette Quimby, had a briefing deadline of November 29, 2018 in which to file her brief, but no brief has been filed. On December 4, 2018, we notified appellee that we would set the case for submission without an appellee’s brief unless ap pellee filed (1) a motion to extend time to file her brief or (2) her brief accompanied by a motion to extend time. Appellee has neither filed a motion to extend time or her appellee’s brief. Accordingly, the case is hereby set at issue.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Sherry Radack

________ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

.

Date: ___ February 7, 2019

____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                             901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                       816
<INVENTORY>                                     11,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,343
<PP&E>                                          41,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,644
<BONDS>                                         12,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,409
<SALES>                                         42,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,372
<CGS>                                           22,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,205
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<PAGE>

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    NAME                                          JURISDICTION                        OWNERSHIP
    --------------------------------------    ---------------------    ----------------------------------------
<C>                                               <C>                  <C>
1.  Gaming & Entertainment Group, Inc.               Nevada            100% (Direct)

2.  G.E.T. (Holdings) Limited                        Malta             100% (Through Gaming & Entertainment
                                                                       Group, Inc, a Nevada corporation)

3.  Gaming & Entertainment Limited                United Kingdom       100% (Through Gaming &
                                                                       Entertainment Group, Inc, a Nevada corporation)

4.  Gaming & Entertainment Technology Pty          Australia           100% (Through Gaming
                                                                       & Entertainment Limited Group, Inc, a Nevada corporation)
</TABLE>
Iowa Department on Aging

Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Grantee

1 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2020, effective August 1, 2020

Goals, Strategies, and Activities

The overall purposes of this 3-year grant are to:

• Goal 1: Through robust partnerships, 

develop a result-based, comprehensive 

strategy for reducing falls and falls risk 

among older adults and adults with 

disabilities living in the community; and

• Goal 2: Significantly increase the number 

of older adults and adults with disabilities 

who participate in evidence-based falls 

prevention programs, while concurrently 

pursuing the sustainability of these 

programs beyond the end of the grant 

period.

The Iowa Department on Aging (IDA) and its 

partners will: 

• Improve the ability of older adults and 

adults with disabilities in targeted 

counties to live safely in their homes by 

reducing in-home falls risk using the 

evidence-based CAPABLE program; and 

• Build a sustainability strategy for 

CAPABLE to flourish beyond the project 

period. 

Proposed Interventions

• Community Aging in Place – Advancing 

Better Living for Elders (CAPABLE)

Partnerships

To achieve the goals of the grant, IDA will 

collaborate with the following key partners:

• Area Agencies on Aging

• Easterseals Iowa

• Habitat for Humanity 

• Iowa Association of Occupational 

Therapists

• Iowa Department of Public Health

• Iowa Falls Coalition

• Iowa Healthcare Collaborative 

• Iowa Livable Homes Coalition

• John Hopkins School of Nursing

• League of Human Dignity

• Methodist Jennie Edmundson Hospital
2 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2020, effective August 1, 2020

Anticipated Results 

The IDA and its partners propose to achieve the 

following results: 

• Engage 320 participants in CAPABLE; 

• Achieve a completion rate of 85% of 

participants in CAPABLE; 

• Establish CAPABLE infrastructures in 

target counties; 

• Provide accessible resources through 

LifeLong Link Web Resource Center; and

• Increase in functional ability measured by 

Activities of Daily Living among 

participants.

Contact:

Alexandra Bauman, RD LDN

Nutrition, Health and Wellness Director

Iowa Department on Aging

alexandra.bauman@iowa.gov

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

http://www.acl.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5041 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5041

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To establish the boundaries and classification of a segment of the 
    Missouri River in Montana under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

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

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF SEGMENT OF UPPER MISSOURI 
              WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, MONTANA.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Wild and Scenic River Act (16 
U.S.C. 1271 et seq.)--
            (1) the boundaries and classification of the Missouri 
        River, Montana, segment designated by section 3(a)(14) of that 
        Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(14)) shall be the boundaries and 
        classification published in the Federal Register on January 22, 
        1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 4474-4478); and
            (2) the management plan for such segment shall be as set 
        forth in--
                    (A) the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River 
                Management Plan, dated October 1978, as updated in 
                February 1993; and
                    (B) the West HiLine RMP/EIS Record of Decision 
                covering the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River 
                Corridor, dated January 1992.
    (b) Revision of Boundaries, Classification, and Management Plan.--
This section shall not be considered to limit the authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior to revise the boundaries, classification, or 
management plan for the Missouri River, Montana, segment referred to in 
subsection (a) after the date of the enactment of this Act and in 
accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall be considered to have 
become effective on April 21, 1980.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 17, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5041

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To establish the boundaries and classification of a segment of the 
    Missouri River in Montana under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Railroad Retirement Board

                    In adcordance with directions in Section 3221(c) of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C., Section 3221(c)), the Railroad Retirement Board has determined that the excise tax imposed by such Section Section 3221(c) on every employer, with respect to having individuals in his employ, for each work-hour for which compensation is paid by such employer for services rendered to him during the quarter beginning July 1, 2000, shall be at the rate of 26                    1/2                     cents.                

In accordance with directions in Section 15(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad Retirement Board has determined that for the quarter beginning July 1, 2000, 37.7 percent of the taxes collected under Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be credited to the Railroad Retirement Account and 62.3 percent of the taxes collected under such Sections 3211(b) and 3221(c) plus 100 percent of the taxes collected under Section 3221(d) of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act shall be credited to the Railroad Retirement Supplemental Account.

Dated: June 1, 2000.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-14648  Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 14, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 004 50

- CR

Joshua Rendon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTIC ES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certi fied

below for observance.
#### Overstreet *v.*Nashville Lumber Company.

Lumpkin, J.

1. If a suit is brought on an open account which contains a number of items, but alleges no date except the year, an objection properly made, and in due time, should be sustained, unless by an amendment the defect is cured. Whether an allegation of an approximate date, with a statement that for reasons set out it is impossible truthfully to make a more definite statement on that subject, would suffice, or whether in all events an exact date must be alleged, although strict proof thereof may not be required, if the account is ’within the statute of limitations, ■ need not now be determined. In this ease, in response to a motion to strike the bill of particulars, counsel merely replied orally that they did not know when the goods were furnished and could not state the month; that they had stated the year, and that was as near as they could come to it. No specific ruling was made as to the time or manner of making the objection. *Busby*v. *Marshall,*125 *Ga.*645.

2. Where the defendant pleaded a set-off to the plaintiff’s claim, and it appeared that the account so set off was for work done not for the plaintiff, but for another, firm, and the defendant sought to show that he refused to do the work on the credit of such firm, and thereupon the plaintiff directed him to do the work on its credit and charge the amount thereof to it; and where the real question was whether the work was in fact so done and the credit so extended to the plaintiff in whole or in *459part, or whether it was extended to the firm for whom it was done, and the promise of the plaintiff (if made) was not an original undertaking, but a contract of suretyship, it was error, calculated to confuse the jury, to so charge as to make the liability of the plaintiff turn on the question of whether or not there was a consideration moving to it.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided February 14, 1907.

Complaint. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court. January 18, 1906.

*Hendricks, Smith & Christian,*for plaintiff in error.

*Buie & Knight*and *Alexander & Gary,*contra.

3. It does not appear that there was any error calculated to injure the defendant in charging that at all events the plaintiff admitted that there should be deducted from its claim the sum of $2.05, and that in any event the defendant was entitled to that much.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
#### § 334.1110 Military Ocean Terminal Concord; restricted area.

(a) *The area.*

(1) Beginning at point A on the shore west of the mouth of a small slough (known as Hastings Slough) and passing east of buoy R “6” bearing 60°30′ for 2,860 yards, through Point B on the eastern end of the two Seal Islands, to point C on the southern edge of the Roe Island Channel near buoy R “16A”; thence in a generally easterly direction running along the southern edge of the Roe Island Channel, Port Chicago Reach and Middle Ground West Reach (points D and E) to point F directly north of the eastern shore boundary (point G); thence 180° to point G on the shore line; thence following the high water shore line in a general westerly direction to the point of beginning. The coordinates for the points in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are provided in Table 1.

| | Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Point A (shoreline) | 38.0513 | −122.0576 |
| Point B | 38.0579 | −122.0430 |
| Point C | 38.0630 | −122.0307 |
| Point D | 38.0611 | −122.0205 |
| Point E | 38.0593 | −122.0010 |
| Point F | 38.0594 | −121.9882 |
| Point G (shoreline) | 38.0521 | −121.9882 |

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)

(2) The datum for these coordinates is NAD-83.

(b) *The regulations.*

(1) No person, vessel, watercraft, conveyance or device shall enter or cause to enter or remain in this area. No person shall refuse or fail to remove any person or property in his custody or under his control from this area upon the request of the Commanding Officer of Military Ocean Terminal Concord or his/her authorized representative.

(2) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, and such agencies as he/she shall designate.

[26 FR 11201, Nov. 28, 1961, as amended at 42 FR 17120, Mar. 31, 1977. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 43970, Aug. 27, 1996; 83 FR 64026, Dec. 13, 2018; 89 FR 20319, Mar. 22, 2024]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 31, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 31, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0158. WCE HOLDINGS B, LLC v. JOHNNY WHITEHEAD et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18A69643 18A68844
§ 175.315 Fixed fire extinguishing systems. ( a ) A fixed fire extinguishing system must be of a type approved by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 162.
( b ) A carbon dioxide system must be designed and installed in accordance with 46 CFR part 76, subpart 76.15.
( c ) An automatic sprinkler system must be designed and installed in accordance with 46 CFR 25.30-15(c).
G TEDSTATESDISTW CTCOUkT

SOFTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIPA

CASE NO.:22-cv-80801-M m DLEBROOKS> TT> ,

LANDFALL 2,lNC.,aSnlorida

corporatson,

17lainti/

V.

DATASCOREnM ,LLC,aTexasliniited

liability company;BRENT BIGGS,

individually,andDATASCOREENTERPRISES,

CORP.,aDelawarecorporation,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ADOPTW G REPORT AND RECOM M ENDATION

. .

'@ .

THJS CAUSE comesbeforethe Courton aReportmldRecommendation.issuedby

MagiskateJudgeWiliam Matthewmp (<lRepoif'lonJanuary'30,2024.(DE 133).TheReport

recommends granting DefendantD:atas.core Entepdses,Cop.'s (Gràtascore'')Motion for

Attomeys'Feesand/orNotaxableExpensesandCosts(107).

.

'

.

.

'

Specifkally,JudgeM atthewmanrecommendsDefendantDatascorebeawardedatotalof

$180,748.50ù1atturneys'fees,consistingof$260,623.50fortheattorneys'feestiedtoCnirncross

Q

& Hempelmnnn,and$20,125.00forattomeys'feestiedtoShutts& Bowen).Further,Judge

M atthewmanrecommendsthatDatmscorebeawarded$26,628.34innontaxableexpensesandèosts

.tconsisting.of$23,486.10 fornontaxableexpensestiedto Caimcross& Hempelmnnn,and

$2,142.24forthenontaxableexpensesandcoststiedtoShutts& Bowen).JudgeMatthewman

G akes.suchrecomm endationsonthebasisthatLandfallfailedto respondtotheM otion,so S.D .

F1aLR 71(c)(1)permitstheCourttograntitbydefault;2)therepresentgtionofDàtascorethat

Case 9:22-cv-80801-DMM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2024 Page 1 of 2
Landfal.doesnot.objecttothereliefdàught;and3)tlemedtàoftheMotion.Noobjectionstothe

Reporthavebeen sledandthedeadlinefordoingsohaspassed.

HavingreviewedtheReportandtherecordinthiscase,Iagreew1t.11JudgeM atthewm an's

recomm endations.

Accordingly,itishereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

.

'

(1)TheReport(DE133)isM TIFIED,ADOPTED,andAPPROW Dinitsentirety.

(2)DefendantDatascore'sVerifed Motion forAttorneys'Feesand/orNontaxable

Expensesandcosts(DE 107)isGRANTED inuccordancewiththeamotmtssetout

abpvek

SIGNED inChambersinW estPalm Beach,Flodda,this. yofFebruary,2024.

'

.

.

-

D ALD M .M IDDLEBROOK S

UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGE

cc:Counselofrecord

2

Case 9:22-cv-80801-DMM Document 137 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2024 Page 2 of 2
[Civ. No. 2022.

Fourth Appellate District.

May 12, 1937.]

#### JAMES JAMESON, a Minor, etc., Respondent, v. JACK GAVETT et al., Appellants.

Lewis R. Kirby and George A. Malette for Appellants.

Edward J. Kelly and Ben B. Rubin for Respondent.

BARNARD, P. J.

—The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the appellants had failed to file their printed points and authorities within thirty days after the filing of the transcript, as required by rule I, section 4, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.

The transcript was filed on February 26, 1937. The motion to dismiss the appeal was filed on April 20, 1937. On May 8, 1937, the appellants filed their printed brief. Under the circumstances here appearing the appeal should not be dismissed. *(North*v. *Evans,*114 Cal. App. 714 [300 Pac. 893] ; *Toth*v. *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; *Tyner*v. *Axt,*111 Cal. App. 187 [295 Pac. 97] ; *Fishman*v. *Silva,*108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430]; *Righetti*v. *Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc.,*106 Cal. App. 346 [289 Pac. 650].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.