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

FJ:t.ti:PARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EMERY L. FRAZIER, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

BY L ARRY M. WHEELER, EXECUTIVE CLERK 

Tuesday, July·19, 1966 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGRE.EMENT 

Ordered, That the Senate proceed to vote on Executive I (89th Cong., 2d sess.), the Protocols to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 1949, at 12:30 p.m., on Tuesday, July 19, 1966. 

TREATIES 

Date or Calendar Treaty No. Subject .Action of committee report No. 

-

1965 

June 29 2 Ex. H (86th Oong., Hague Protocol to Warsaw Convention ____ Reported favorably hy 

1st sess.). Mr. Fulbright from 

the Committee ou 

Foreign Relations, 

with a printed reporL. 

(See Ex. Rept. No. 3, 

89th Cong., lst sess.) 

Aug. 3 3 Ex. D (88th Cong., Consular Convention With the Soviet Ueported favorably by 

2d sess.). Union. Mr. Fulbright from 

the Committee on 

Foreign Relations, 

with a printed reporL. 

(See Ex. Rept. No. 4, 

89th Cong., 1st seas.) 

Minority views filed 

Aug. 5, 1965. (See 

Ex. Uept. No. 4, p. 2; 

89th Cong., 1st seas.) 

1966 

July 15 7 Ex. I (89th Cong., Protocols to the Northwest Atlantic Fish- Reported favorably by 

2d sess.). eries Convention of 1949. Mr. Fulbright from 

the Committee on 

Foreign Relations, 

with a printed report. 

(See Ex. Rept. No. 7, 

89th Cong., 2d seas.) 

NOMINATION 

Date of Calendar Message Name of nominee Office Predecessor report No. No. 

- DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY 

1966 

July 15 861 211 Winthrop Knowlton, of An Assistant Secretary of Merlyn N. Trued, 

New York. the Treasury. resigned. 

65- 022--66--No.240 U. S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFI CE: 1586
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Delta Regional Authority","provider_url":"https:\/\/dra.gov","author_name":"Aha! Creative","author_url":"https:\/\/dra.gov\/author\/admin\/","title":"Performance & Accountability Report - Delta Regional Authority","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VG1oZFxj3E\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dra.gov\/accountability\/performance-accountability\/\">Performance & Accountability Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/dra.gov\/accountability\/performance-accountability\/embed\/#?secret=VG1oZFxj3E\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Performance & Accountability Report” — Delta Regional Authority\" data-secret=\"VG1oZFxj3E\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Staying Accountable The Delta Regional Authority is committed to accountability as we provide an effective mechanism for federal investment in the Delta region. We continually strive to\u00a0improve our performance and cut waste so that our job creation and health investments have the maximum impact on the Delta.\u00a0The DRA submits its processes and investments for external […]"}
824 P.2d 127

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Douglas Wayne GARNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18876.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 1991 Term.

Jan. 16, 1992.

Byington, Holloway, Whipple & Jones, Chtd., Burley, for defendant-appellant. E.W. (Skip) Carter argued.

Larry J. EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Michael A. Henderson, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

*197PER CURIAM.

This case requires us to decide whether I.C. § 18-301 prohibits the state from prosecuting and punishing an individual for multiple counts of aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) arising from one accident. We conclude that our recent decision in *State v. Lowe,*120 Idaho 252, 815 P.2d 450 (1991) governs, and affirm the convictions and sentences.

In this case, the state charged Douglas Wayne Garner with three counts of aggravated DUI arising from an accident in which a pickup he was driving collided with a vehicle occupied by a married couple. The collision killed a passenger in Garner’s pickup and injured the couple. Following the accident, the concentration of alcohol in Garner’s blood was measured at 0.23.

Garner moved to dismiss two of the counts of aggravated DUI on the basis of I.C. § 18-301. The trial court denied Garner’s motion, and Garner entered a conditional plea of guilty to the three counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. The trial court sentenced Garner to three concurrent terms of two to five years—one term for each count.

In *State v. Lowe,*we said: “I.C. § 18-301 was not intended to prevent multiple prosecutions or punishments in cases where more than one victim is involved.” 120 Idaho at 255, 815 P.2d at 453. I.C. § 18-301 is less applicable here than it was in *Lowe.*In *Lowe,*there were two victims and two charges—one for vehicular manslaughter and another for aggravated DUI. In this case, there were three victims, and all three charges were for aggravated DUI. The restrictions of I.C. § 18-301 are limited to cases where “[a]n act or omission ... is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of [the criminal] code.” In this case the act or omission is made punishable under the provisions of the aggravated DUI statute only.

We affirm Garner’s convictions and sentences.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                               482,531
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      2,034,342
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                        1,892,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   4,534,005
<PP&E>                             2,109,839
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,787,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     8,136,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                954,432
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                        4,880,670
<COMMON>                              76,691
<OTHER-SE>                         2,224,881
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       7,182,242
<SALES>                           12,608,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  12,608,863
<CGS>                              6,253,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      4,972,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     9,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,373,482
<INCOME-TAX>                      (3,255,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                4,628,482
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       4,284,918
<EPS-BASIC>                            .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .56



</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133855 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 133855 COA: 276163 Hillsdale CC: 06-301079 SHAWN JACOB ORT, 06-301080, 06-301081, Defendant-Appellant. 06-301093, 06-301094

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4303

_____________________________

RACHEL RENEA MILLER f/k/a

RACHEL RENEA HODGSON,

Appellant,

v.

JAMES BRANDON HODGSON,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County.

Stanley H. Griffis III, Judge.

August 21, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for 

Appellant.

Nathan S. Williams, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with 37 CFR Part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 7,109,136 B2 entitled “Conductive (Electrical, Ionic, and Photoelectric) Polymer Membrane Articles, and Method for Producing Same” Issued September 19, 2006. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Arnold Boucher at U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760, Phone; (508) 233-5431 or E-mail:                         *Arnold.Boucher@natick.army.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-8356 Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/PRO/37 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/PRO/37

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PROTOCOLS - Protocol (No 37) on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC treaty and on the Research fund for Coal and Steel **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0327 - 0328 *

PROTOCOL (No 37)

ON THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPIRY OF THE ECSC TREATY AND ON THE RESEARCH FUND FOR COAL AND STEEL

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

RECALLING that all assets and liabilities of the European Coal and Steel Community, as they existed on 23 July 2002, were transferred to the European Community on 24 July 2002,

TAKING ACCOUNT of the desire to use these funds for research in sectors related to the coal and steel industry and therefore the necessity to provide for certain special rules in this regard,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1

1. The net worth of these assets and liabilities, as they appear in the balance sheet of the ECSC of 23 July 2002, subject to any increase or decrease which may occur as a result of the liquidation operations, shall be considered as assets intended for research in the sectors related to the coal and steel industry, referred to as the "ECSC in liquidation". On completion of the liquidation they shall be referred to as the "assets of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel".

2. The revenue from these assets, referred to as the "Research Fund for Coal and Steel", shall be used exclusively for research, outside the research framework programme, in the sectors related to the coal and steel industry in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol and of acts adopted on the basis hereof.

Article 2

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt all the necessary provisions for the implementation of this Protocol, including essential principles.

The Council shall adopt, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, measures establishing multiannual financial guidelines for managing the assets of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel and technical guidelines for the research programme of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel.

Article 3

Except as otherwise provided in this Protocol and in the acts adopted on the basis hereof, the provisions of the Treaties shall apply.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E284 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E284

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 6: The European Central Bank - Article 284 (ex Article 113 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0168 - 0168 *

Article 284

(ex Article 113 TEC)

1. The President of the Council and a Member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

2. The President of the European Central Bank shall be invited to participate in Council meetings when the Council is discussing matters relating to the objectives and tasks of the ESCB.

3. The European Central Bank shall address an annual report on the activities of the ESCB and on the monetary policy of both the previous and current year to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and also to the European Council. The President of the European Central Bank shall present this report to the Council and to the European Parliament, which may hold a general debate on that basis.

The President of the European Central Bank and the other members of the Executive Board may, at the request of the European Parliament or on their own initiative, be heard by the competent committees of the European Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                   JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                          ORGANIZATION
----------                                                         ---------------
<C>  <S>                                                           <C>
 1.  SPSS International, BV......................................  The Netherlands
 2.  SPSS Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. .................................  Singapore
 3.  SPSS Benelux BV.............................................  The Netherlands
 4.  SPSS GmbH...................................................  Germany
 5.  SPSS Scandinavia AB.........................................  Sweden
 6.  SPSS UK Ltd. ...............................................  England
 7.  SPSS Japan, Inc. ...........................................  Japan
 8.  SPSS Australasia Pty Ltd. ..................................  Australia
 9.  SPSS UK Ltd., India.........................................  India
10.  SPSS France Sarl............................................  France
11.  SPSS Science Software GmbH..................................  Germany
12.  SPSS ASC BV.................................................  The Netherlands
13.  Jandel Corporation..........................................  California
14.  SPSS Ltd. ..................................................  England
15.  SPSS A/S....................................................  Denmark
16.  Surveycraft Pty Ltd. .......................................  Australia
17.  Integral Solutions Ltd. ....................................  England
18.  Quantime Ltd. ..............................................  England
19.  Europe BV...................................................  The Netherlands
20.  Vento Software Inc. ........................................  Florida
21.  SPSS Foreign Sales Corp. ...................................  Barbados
22.  ShowCase....................................................  Minnesota
23.  NetGenesis Corp. ...........................................  Delaware
24.  SPSS Iberica................................................  Spain
</Table>

                                        1
<PAGE>




                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.2



                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
                      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that:

(1)    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of SPSS Inc. for the period ended December
       31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
       date hereof (the "Report"), 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SPSS Inc.



Date:  March 31, 2003                By:  /s/ EDWARD HAMBURG
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Edward Hamburg
                                        Executive Vice-President, Corporate
                                        Operations and Chief Financial Officer
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00897-CR

IN RE Juan Carlos DIAZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 12, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 20, 2010, relator Juan Carlos Diaz filed a petition for writ of mandamus. 

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-9555, styled State of Texas v. Juan Carlos Diaz, 

pending in the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding.
#### § 13.1188 Where to get charts depicting closed waters.

Closed waters and islands within Glacier Bay as described in §§ 13.1174-13.1180 of this subpart are described as depicted on NOAA Chart #17318 GLACIER BAY (4th Ed., Mar. 6/93) available to the public at park offices at Bartlett Cove and Juneau, Alaska.
Manchester Municipal Court,

No. 4823.

#### State *v.*Walter J. Harlan, Jr.

Argued October 4, 1960.

Decided October 28, 1960.

*Louis C. Wyman,*Attorney General and *Irma A. Matthews,*Law Assistant *{Mrs. Matthews*orally), for the State.

*Emile B. Bussiere*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

*32Wheeler, J.

The defendant was charged in the first instance with being drunk in a public place to the disturbance of the peace. This would be a violation of RSA 570:14 which provides: “Drunkenness. No person shall be drunk in a street or other public place, nor in a private building or- place, disturbing his family, or to the disturbance of the peace.” Upon this charge he was found not guilty. The second complaint was thereupon filed charging the defendant with disorderly conduct in a public place a violation of RSA 570:1 which provides: “Brawls, etc. No person shall make a brawl, nor, in any street or other public place, be guilty of rude, indecent, or disorderly conduct, or insult or wantonly impede a person passing therein, or play therein at any game.” *State*v. *Kennison,*55 N. H. 242.

The defendant contends that since the actions and conduct of the defendant alleged to have been disorderly conduct are the same as those about which testimony was introduced at the trial of the prior complaint charging that the defendant was drunk in a public place his plea of former jeopardy constitutes a bar to the pending complaint. N. H. Const., Pt. I, *Art.*16th.

This argument overlooks the fact that in order to constitute former jeopardy “It must appear that the offense previously charged was the ‘same *in law*and *in fact.’ ” State*v. *Smith,*98 N. H. 149, and cases cited.

In this case the offense first charged, of which the defendant was acquitted, consisted in law and in fact of drunkenness in a public place. The offense now charged consists in law and in fact of rude and disorderly conduct in a public place. While the evidence required to establish each offense might show essentially the same conduct on the part of the defendant there is a distinguishing element, in that under the pending complaint, it is not necessary to show that the defendant was drunk.

The offense is established if it is shown that the defendant was “loud and boisterous” to the extent that his rude conduct led to his ejection by a police officer, as alleged by the complaint. The facts now charged, without evidence of intoxication would not have sustained a conviction under the former complaint. Hence former jeopardy is not a defense. *State*v. *Smith, supra.*

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
# EUR-Lex - 12005SP017 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SP017

**Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - PART THREE:PERMANENT PROVISIONS - TITLE I:ADAPTATIONS TO ACTS ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS - Article 17 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0034 - 0034 *

Article 17

The adaptations to the acts listed in Annex IV to this Protocol made necessary by accession shall be drawn up in conformity with the guidelines set out in that Annex.

--------------------------------------------------