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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2086 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that foods 

containing spices, flavoring, or coloring derived from meat, poultry, or 

other animal products (including insects) bear labeling stating that fact 

and their names. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2009 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require that foods containing spices, flavoring, or coloring 

derived from meat, poultry, or other animal products 

(including insects) bear labeling stating that fact and 

their names. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Food Ingredient Right 

5 to Know Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2086 IH

1 (1) Millions of Americans follow certain dietary 

2 guidelines for health, religious, and cultural reasons. 

3 These individuals depend on ingredient labels for the 

4 information they need to abide by these guidelines. 

5 (2) Under current regulations, food manufac6 turers are not required to identify the products used 

7 in natural or artificial flavorings, colorings, or 

8 spices, or some food additives. 

9 (3) These additives often contain derivatives of 

10 meat, poultry, and other animal products, such as 

11 insects. 

12 SEC. 3. FOOD LABELING; REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT 

13 REGARDING SPICES, FLAVORING, AND 

14 COLORING DERIVED FROM MEAT OR POUL15 TRY. 

16 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

17 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended— 

18 (1) in paragraph (g), by inserting ‘‘, subject to 

19 paragraph (z)’’ before the period at the end; 

20 (2) in paragraph (i), by inserting ‘‘, subject to 

21 paragraph (z)’’ before the first period; and 

22 (3) by adding at the end the following para23 graph: 

24 ‘‘(z) If it contains any spice, flavoring, or coloring de25 rived from meat, poultry, or any other animal product (inmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2086 IH

1 cluding insects) unless its labeling bears a statement with 

2 appropriate prominence on the information panel pro3 viding that fact and the name of the meat, poultry, or 

4 other animal product, respectively.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. CHARLES H. ROOSEVELT, Appellant, *v.*THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF NEW ROCHELLE, Respondent.

*Bepeal of law*— *when it revives a prior law*— *New Boehelle*— its *trustees have power to act as a hom'd of health.*

The repeal of the acts creating a metropolitan sanitary district by chapter 433 of 1871, and the provision contained in the latter act empowering the trustees, of every incorporated village in Westchester county to exercise all the authority given by the Revised Statutes, “ and all acts supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof,” revived subdivision 17 of section 1 of title 3 of chapter 249 o'f 1864 authorizing the board of trustees of the village of New Rochelle to act as a board of health within the village limits.

*489Appeal from ail order denying a motion for a writ of *mandamus*to compel the board of trustees of the village of New Rochelle to appoint a board of health for that village.

*G. H.*Roosevelt, appellant in person.

*Martin J.*Keogh, for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

The defendants by their charter were clothed with the power *“*to act as a board of health ” within the village limits. (Chap. 249, Laws of 1864; tit. 3, § 1, sub. 17; tit. 7, § 8.) As the general law stood in reference to villages the trustees had only power to appoint boards of health. (1R. S. [6 ed.], pt. 1, tit. 6, chap. 14, art. 2.) The charter to defendants, as to the village, was supplemental to the general law and provided a different board of health composed of the village trustees. Subsequently to the passage of the defendants’ charter a metropolitan sanitary district was created which included New Rochelle within its limits, and a board of health was provided by law for the entire district. ■

No doubt this board of health was designed to embrace all the sanitary district, and was to exclude all other boards of health. (Chap. 74, Laws of 1866; chap. 686, Laws of 1866.) .

In 1871, the act creating the sanitary district and board of health therein was repealed, and the trustees of every incorporated village in Westchester county were empowered to exercise all the authority given by the Revised Statutes above cited, “ and all acts supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof.” The charter of defendant was supplemental to the Revised Statutes as to a board of health within its boundaries. The legislature as to this village changed the general law and made the trustees a board of health. ■ When the metropolitan sanitary act was repealed, it revived the clauses in the defendants charter under the words *“*supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof.” (Chap. 433, Laws of 1871.)

These words revived the general law, and all laws relating to the public health in specified divisions, like villages which had special

62 *490powers on this subject * * ,* and which had been suspended by the sanitary act referred to.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Gilbert, J., concurred; Dykman, J., not sittting.'

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
#### GEORGE SHAW, PLAINTIFF, v. VERMONT MARBLE COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided October 21, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chive Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.

Eor the rule, *James D. Carton.*

*Contra, Cook & Stout.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was engaged in moving large pieces of marble weighing one thousand pounds and upward from the ground to the eighth or ninth floor of a new building of the electric light company at Asbury Park. They were moved by means of an elevator. The pieces were too large to be placed in the usual manner on the platform of the elevator and were accordingly placed in a diagonal position thereon. At each floor a plank had been placed so that laborers in wheeling barrows from the elevator would not break the concrete flooring. Columns at or near the floor entrance of the elevator had been tiled. Thirteen loads had been hoisted when on the fourteenth load as the elevator reached the sixth floor, a piece of tiling became dislodged and fell down the shaft injuring the plaintiff. He sued for such injuries as he received and has a verdict for $18,500.

This verdict we are asked to set aside because it is against the weight of evidence and there is no evidence of negligence and finally because it is excessive.

We conclude that the proofs do not warrant us in setting aside the verdict for any of these reasons.

The rule will therefore be discharged.
§ 294.9 Product tanker vessel eligibility requirements. ( a ) *Eligibility.* To be eligible to be included in the fleet, the vessel must: ( 1 ) Meet the requirements of § 294.11;
( 2 ) Operate (or in the case of a vessel to be constructed, will be operated) in providing transportation in United States foreign commerce;
( 3 ) Be self-propelled;
( 4 ) Be not more than 10 years of age on the date the vessel is first included in the Fleet;
( 5 ) Be suitable for use by the United States for national defense or military purposes in time of war or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary of Defense;
( 6 ) Be commercially viable, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation; and
( 7 ) Be— ( i ) A vessel of the United States; or
( ii ) Not a vessel of the United States, but the owner of the vessel has demonstrated that— ( A ) The vessel is eligible for a USCG certificate of inspection; and
( B ) The vessel owner intends to have the vessel documented under 46 U.S.C. chapter 121 at the time the vessel is to be included in the fleet.
( b ) *Telecommunications and other electronic equipment.* The telecommunications and other electronic equipment on an existing vessel that is redocumented under the laws of the United States for operation under a TSP Operating Agreement will satisfy all Federal Communications Commission equipment certification requirements if: ( 1 ) The equipment complies with all applicable international agreements and associated guidelines as determined by the country in which the vessel was documented immediately before becoming documented under the laws of the United States;
( 2 ) The country has not been identified by the Secretary as inadequately enforcing international regulations as to that vessel; and
( 3 ) The equipment, at the end of its useful life, will be replaced with equipment that meets Federal Communications Commission equipment certification standards.
RECEIVED \U

The Court of Appeals

Sixth District

NOV 3 0 2015

Texarkana,Texas

Debra Auirey, Clerk STATE OF TEXAS

COURT OF APPEALS

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RE: APPELLATE CASE NUMBER: 06-15-00004-CV

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 2013-390

STYLE: BILLIE MURPHY TREMBLE, SHARON TREMBLE DONALDSON,

SELIA TREMBLE SHAWKEY, WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, JR.,

THE ESTATE OF WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, SR., Appellants,

Vs.

LUMINANT MINING COMPANY LLC, ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS

CORPORATION, AND SUBSIDIARIES, Appellees.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

In response to the court date of October 27, 2015, we the Tremble

Family are asking the court to reinstate the Appeal on our behalf in

reference to the No Summary Judgment.
§ 28.73 Accepted organizations. An organization desiring to be designated by the Commandant as an accepted organization must request such designation in writing. As a minimum the organization must verify that it is an organization— ( a ) With a Code of Ethics;
( b ) Whose surveyors are familiar with the requirements of this chapter related to commercial fishing industry vessels;
( c ) Whose surveyors are familiar with the operations and equipment on board commercial fishing industry vessels;
( d ) Whose only interest in the fishing industry is in ensuring the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels and surveying commercial fishing industry vessels;
( e ) That has grievance procedures;
( f ) That has procedures for accepting and terminating membership of an individual, including minimum professional qualifications for surveyors;
( g ) That maintains a roster of present and past accepted members and surveyors; and
( h ) That has an Apprentice/Associate program for surveyors.
#### Caroline Bertschy, *Respondent, v.*Charles Bertschy, *Appel*lant.

Order modified by reversing same as to alimony and reducing counsel fee to fifty dollars, and affirmed as modified, without costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.
December II , 2012 Colleen Cripp s, Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 Carson C ity, Nevada 8970 l-5 249 

# Air

CLARK COUNTY • DEPARTMENT OF AIR QUALITY 4701 W. Russell Road Suite 200 ·Las Vegas, NV 89118-2231 (702) 455-5942 • Fax (702) 383-9994 Lewis Wallen meyer Director • Tina Gingras Assistant Di recto r

Re: Clark County Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
Dear Dr. C ripp s : The C lark Co unty Department of Air Quality i s plea se d to submit the 

### Clark Co unt y Nitroge n Dioxide Infrastructur e Stal e Implementation Plan (N0 2 I-SIP) for inclusion in th e 

### Nevada Ni trogen Dioxide Infrastru ctur e State Impl emen tation Plan. This Plan sati sfies the requi re me nt s of Section s 11 0(a)( I) and (2) of the Clea n Air Act. The s ubmittal include s two paper copi es and two e lec tronic copies (i ncludin g attachm e nt s)
. P lease forw ard o ne printed and o n e electronic copy to the R eg io n 9 office of the U.S. Environmental Protectio n Ag e nc y . We certify th at the e le ctronic cop y is an exact duplicate of the original paper copy. If you have any questions regarding thi s s ubmittal , pl e a se contact Jean -Pau l Huy s at (702) 4 5 5-1684.
Sincere ly,



# f;l~ Lewt s Wallenmeyer Director

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Susan Brager, Cha i r • Steve Sisolak , Vice-Chairma n La r ry B r ow n • To m Co llin s • C hr i s G iun c higli ani M ary Beth Scow • L aw r e n ce Weekly Don Burnette , Co unty M a n ager

### Dr. Colleen Cripps December 6, 2012 Page 2
Attachment: Clark County Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure State Implementation Plan



### cc: Dennis Ransel, Planning Manager, DAQ Rob Bamford, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP Adele Malone, Supervisor, NDEP
#### § 201.22 Firms and corporations.

Except as regards law firms, practice before the Administration by firms or corporations on behalf of others shall not be permitted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AERIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AS OF DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,767
<INVENTORY>                                      8,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,062
<PP&E>                                         816,757
<DEPRECIATION>                               (196,844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 972,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,974
<BONDS>                                        250,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,213
<OTHER-SE>                                     315,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   972,376
<SALES>                                         30,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,501
<CGS>                                           61,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (282,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (113,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (169,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (169,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.24)


</TABLE>
# C_2011145EN.01003601.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/36

---

Action brought on 25 March 2011 — PASP and Others v Council

(Case T-177/11)

2011/C 145/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome de San Pedro (PASP) (San Pedro, Côte d’Ivoire), Port autonome d’Abidjan (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Société de gestion du patrimoine du secteur de l'électricité (Sogepe) (Abidjan) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 imposing restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities and in particular as regards the applicants, namely the PORT AUTONOME DE SAN PEDRO, the PORT AUTONOME D’ABIDJAN and the société de gestion du patrimoine du secteur de l’électricité SOGEPE; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 imposing restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities and in particular as regards the applicants, namely the PORT AUTONOME DE SAN PEDRO, the PORT AUTONOME D’ABIDJAN and the société de gestion du patrimoine du secteur de l’électricité SOGEPE;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-142/11 SIR v Council.

SIR

Council

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending June 3, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 99.12
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 1999-C
                           through December 31, 1999
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-1        Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4        Class B          Class C
           5.149%           5.351%           5.77%            6.08%            6.42%            6.75%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Certificates
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     -------------



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Principal
Paid       $250,000,000.00  $396,915,716.84  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00

Interest
Paid       $  1,331,960.81  $ 12,378,130.81  $ 26,340,050.00  $ 17,588,554.35  $  3,240,292.06  $  1,946,744.25

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $ 15,159,913.66



</TABLE>
# C_2013325EN.01005102.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/51

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-99/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Payment of arrears of remuneration - Locus standi - Action manifestly inadmissible)

2013/C 325/82

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period from 1 June 2005 to 21 July 2010.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 67.

1

---
#### § 296.12 Applicants.

*Applicant.* Owners or operators of an eligible vessel may apply to MARAD for inclusion of that vessel in the MSP Fleet pursuant to the provisions of the MSA 2003. Applications shall be addressed to the Secretary, Maritime Administration, Room 7218, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM LEE MAHER and, 

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 15-10790 

FEDERATED SERVICE INSURANCE, HON. AVERN COHN 

COMPANY, AON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. 

d/b/a BROOKLYN FORD and MELISSA STRANG, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FEDERATED SERVICE 

INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. 27) 

 This is a dispute between insurance companies. On October 26, 2015, the Court 

entered a Memorandum and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings (Doc. 25). The Memorandum and Order stated: 

(1) Federated is obligated to provide Maher’s primary defense in the underlying 

case; 

(2) Federated has the primary duty to indemnify Maher up to the limits of the policy 

issued to Brooklyn Ford that was in effect at the time of the underlying accident; 

(3) Federated is obligated and has a duty to reimburse Selective for the defense 

costs it incurred in the defense of the claim asserted against Maher in the 

underlying case. 

That same day, the Court entered a Judgment closing the case. (Doc. 26). The 

Judgment stated: “For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order on October 

2:15-cv-10790-AC-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 01/25/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 401
2 

26, 2015, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted and this case is 

now closed.” Id. 

 On November 23, 2015, Defendant Federated Service Insurance Company filed 

a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Doc. 27). Defendant’s motion requested that 

that the Court either (1) alter the order and judgment to reflect that they are limited to 

Federated’s primary policy – the only policy at issue in the pleadings; or (2) withdraw 

the order and judgment to permit the parties to amend the pleadings and address 

coverage issues under Federated’s umbrella policy. In response, Plaintiffs had no 

objection to asking the Court to amend the order and judgment to reflect that they apply 

only to Federated’s primary policy. (Doc. 30). 

 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is GRANTED. 

The Court AMENDS its order and judgment to reflect that they apply only to Federated’s 

primary policy. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 

 AVERN COHN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 25, 2016 

Detroit, Michigan 

2:15-cv-10790-AC-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 01/25/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 402