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

[House Report 111-655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-655
======================================================================
 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL (H.R. 
   3081) MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 
 OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 
                    30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 September 29, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1682]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1682, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 3081, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the 
chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that 
the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3081. The 
resolution provides one hour of debate on the motion equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all 
points of order against consideration of the motion except 
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the 
resolution provides that the Senate amendments and the motion 
shall be considered as read.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The waiver of all points of order against consideration of 
the motion (except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI) 
includes a waiver of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget 
Act regarding consideration of legislation providing new budget 
authority in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of 
such authority.

                                  

```
#### § 188.10-11 Chemistry laboratory.

This term includes any space in which experiments are conducted or chemicals are used for scientific purposes in conjunction with the research mission of the vessel, and is so identified.
#### Patrick Murray, *as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v.*The Troy and West Troy Bridge Company, *Respondent*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Landon, J.;

Learned, P. J. dissenting..
Case 1:07-cv-02240-RCL-RWR Document 68 Filed 12/05/2008 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1120 Nozzles. ( a ) Nozzles for the water spray system must be spaced to provide the minimum discharge density under § 154.1115 in each part of the protected area.
( b ) The vertical distance between water spray nozzles for the protection of vertical surfaces must be 3.7 m (12 ft.) or less.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 164](/current/title-46/part-164?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, [77 FR 59787](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/77-FR-59787), Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.023-5 Performance; standard thread.

(a) *Use Codes 1, 2, 3, 4BC, 4RB, 5 (any).* Each thread which complies with all of the requirements of a specification listed in table [164.023-5(a)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-164.023-5#p-164.023-5(a)) is assigned Use Codes 1, 2, 3, 4BC, 4RB, and 5 (any).

Table [164.023-5](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-164.023-5)(a)

[Use codes 1, 2, 3, 4BC, 4RB, 5(any)]

| Federal or military specification | Material | Type | Class | Ticket No. or size range |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| V-T-285E | Polyester | I or II | 1 | E, F, FF. |
| V-T-295E | Nylon | I or II | A | E, F, FF. |
| MIL-T-43624A | Polyester | | | 24 through 12. |
| MIL-T-43548C | Polyester covered only | | | 24 through 12. |

(b) *Use Code 4B.* Each thread which meets the requirements of Federal Specifications V-T-295, Type II, Class A, number size 4, is assigned Use Code 4B.
# C_2013026EN.01006902.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/69

---

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2012 — Arla Foods v OHIM — Artax (Lactofree)

(Case T-364/11) (1)

1

2013/C 26/136

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
# C_2014031EN.01000901.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)

(Case T-591/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SUPER GLUE - Earlier Benelux word mark SUPERGLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 31/14

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (Jaworzno, Poland) (represented by: M. Konieczyński and I. Kubiec, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Henkel Corp. (Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2011 (Case R 1147/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel Corp. and Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
DISMISS; Opinion Filed May 19, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00203

- CV

MICHAEL AND RHONDA S IMMONS , Appellants
V.
MARCI CLARK , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 1300365



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, O'Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion by Justice Moseley
The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this ca se are past due. By

postcard dated February 20, 2014, we notified appellant s the $1 9 5 filing fee was due. We

directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that

failure to do so would result in dismissal of t he appeal. Also by postcard dated February 20,

2014, we notified appellant s the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed

appellant s to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant s that failure to

do so mi ght result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated April 24, 2014, we informed

appellants the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellants had not paid for the clerk’s

record. We directed appellants to provide verification of payment or arran gements to pay for the

clerk’s record or to provide written documentation they had been found entitled to proceed

without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to do so would result in the– 2

– dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellants have not paid the filing fee,

filed the docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded

with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

140203F.P05 /Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL AND RHONDA SIMMONS, Appellants

No. 05

- 14

- 00203

- CV V.

MARCI CLARK, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 1300365. Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley. Justices O'Neill and FitzGerald participating.

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

. It is ORDERED that appellee MARCI CLARK recover her costs of this appeal from appellants MICHAEL AND RHONDA SIMMONS.

Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2014.

/Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         282,431                 339,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,270,352               1,708,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,426                   8,700
<INVENTORY>                                     39,229                  42,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,675,036               2,081,421
<PP&E>                                         419,161                 359,089
<DEPRECIATION>                                 200,742                 103,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,165,013               2,739,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,666,750               2,017,298
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        13,403                  11,689
<OTHER-SE>                                     482,457                 393,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,165,013               2,738,769
<SALES>                                      2,227,658               1,762,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,227,658               1,762,260
<CGS>                                           42,088                 118,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,155,002               1,440,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,860                  15,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,296                 306,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,796                 306,341
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,796                 306,341
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                     .02


</TABLE>
§ 188.35-1 Standards to be used. ( a ) Where in this subchapter an item, or method of construction, or testing is required to meet the standards established by the American Bureau of Shipping, the current standards in effect at the time of construction of the vessel, or otherwise as applicable, shall be used.
( b ) The current standards of other recognized classification societies may also be accepted upon approval by the Commandant.
Order entered December 16, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00517-CR

ARIANNA LINDSEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1171158-J

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On November 18, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding whether 

the case involved a plea bargain, whether appellant waived her right to appeal, and whether the 

trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that: 

(1) appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that punishment would be assessed 

between eight and twenty-two years’ imprisonment; (2) appellant did not waive her right to 

appeal as part of the agreement; (3) the trial court followed the agreement and sentenced 

appellant to eighteen years’ imprisonment; (4) although there was an agreement as to a 

punishment cap, the parties and the trial court treated the case as involving an “open” guilty plea; 

(5) both parties were informed on the record that appellant could appeal the trial court’s decision; 
and (6) thus, the trial court has granted appellant permission to appeal. The supplemental clerk’s 

record contains the trial court’s amended certification giving appellant permission to appeal.

We have received the reporter’s record from the plea and sentencing hearings, as well as 

the clerk’s record.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
NUMBER 13-21-00438-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF T.C. AND K.C., CHILDREN

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant has filed a 

first motion of extension fo time to file a brief. Appellant’s brief was due on March 15, 

2022. Appellant has requested a ten-day extension to file a brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that 
2

these appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the 

shortened appellate deadlines, we limit the request to one ten-day extension of time 

absent truly extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

This Court, having fully examined and considered appellant’s motion is of the 

opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file 

his brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, requires strict adherence to 

the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and looks 

with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.6; see also id. at R. 28.4.

The Court GRANTS appellant’s first motion for extension of time. This motion is 

GRANTED insofar as the Court will extend appellant’s deadline to file his brief to March 

25, 2022 as requested. Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably 

entertained by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

15th day of March, 2022.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.023-7 Performance; non-standard thread. ( a ) *Use Codes 1, 2, 3, 4BC, 4RB, 5 (any).* Each non-standard thread which meets all of the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section is assigned Use Codes 1, 2, 3, 4BC, 4RB, and 5 (any). ( 1 ) *Single strand breaking strength.* The thread, as received, must have a single strand breaking strength of not less than 25 N (5.7 lb.), when tested in accordance with Test Method 4100 in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A using a Constant-Rate-of-Traverse (CRT) testing machine.
( 2 ) *Single strand breaking strength (after weathering).* After exposure in a sunshine carbon-arc weatherometer in accordance with Test Method 5804 in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A for a period of 100 hours, the thread must retain at least 60 percent of its single strand breaking strength as received, and have a breaking strength of at least 21 N (4.7 lb.).
( 3 ) *Loop breaking strength.* The thread, as received, must have a loop breaking strength of not less than 45 N (10.0 lb.), when tested in accordance with Test Method 4100 in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A using a CRT testing machine, except that— ( i ) Each specimen must consist of two 35 cm (14 in.) pieces of thread; and
( ii ) Both ends of one piece of thread must be secured without twisting in one clamp of the testing machine so that the length of the loop formed equals one half the distance between the clamps. One end of the second piece must then be passed without twisting through the loop formed by the first, and both ends must be secured in the other clamp of the machine. The breaking strength must then be determined under the single strand test.
( b ) *Use Code 4B.* Each non-standard thread which meets all of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section is assigned Use Code 4B. ( 1 ) *Single strand breaking strength.* The thread as received must have a single strand breaking strength of not less than 160 N (36.0 lb.) when tested in accordance with Test Method 4100 in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A using a CRT testing machine.
( 2 ) *Single strand breaking strength (after weathering).* After exposure in a sunshine carbon-arc weatherometer in accordance with Test Method 5804 in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A for a period of 100 hours, the thread must retain at least 60 percent of its single strand breaking strength.
( c ) *Prohibited threads.* Cotton thread, and monofilament thread of any composition, will not be accepted for use in structural applications unless demonstrated to the Commandant to be equivalent to standard thread in durability in all foreseeable conditions of use and stowage.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF GOLDEN SKY SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 2000
(UNAUDITED) AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED). THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                       942
<INVENTORY>                                      2,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,738
<PP&E>                                           9,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,418
<BONDS>                                        195,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        868
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,240)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,038
<SALES>                                         43,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,548
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (17,988.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (17,988.00)


</TABLE>
# C_2014184EN.01000201.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/2

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission

(Case C-248/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Admissibility of the action for annulment - Situation of the appellant not directly affected by the contested decision))

2014/C 184/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Donnelly and P. Rossi, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the Order of 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10 Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission, by which the General Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU (notified under No C(2010) 4894) of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

1

---