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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 21

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the

name of the Senate in Senator Robert C. Byrd, et al. v. Franklin

D. Raines, et al.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 22, 1997

Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. COATS, and Mr. STEVENS)

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus

curiae in the name of the Senate in Senator Robert

C. Byrd, et al. v. Franklin D. Raines, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Senator Robert C. Byrd, et al. v.

Franklin D. Raines, et al., C.A. No. 97–0001, pending in

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act

(Public Law 104–130; 110 Stat. 1200), has been placed

in issue;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), and 713(a) of

the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288b(c),

288e(a), 288l(a)), the Senate may direct its counsel to

appear as amicus curiae in the name of the Senate in any

legal action in which the powers and responsibilities of
2

•SRES 21 ATS

Congress under the Constitution are placed in issue:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

2 to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the Senate in the

3 case of Senator Robert C. Byrd et al. v. Franklin D.

4 Raines, et al., to defend the constitutionality of the Line

5 Item Veto Act.

Æ
Before the Second Division,

October 1, 1953

No. 57505.

#### Castello Fencing Equipment Co., Inc., and American Express Co. *v.*United States,

protests 197562-K and 197563-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of foil blades similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Castello Fencing Equipment Co., Inc.,*and *Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 72, C. D. 1447), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 25

Disapproving the rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

relating to occupational exposure to methylene chloride.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 10, 1997

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. NICKLES, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the rule of the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration relating to occupational exposure to

methylene chloride.

Whereas when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published on January 10, 1997, its final rule on

occupational exposure to methylene chloride it redefined

the size of small business without appropriate consultation;

Whereas the Small Business Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–403) requires the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration to apply

to the Small Business Administration to use an alternative definition of small entities that may be affected by

the Administration’s rule;
2

•SJ 25 IS

Whereas the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

did not consult with the Office of Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration while performing the economic

analysis for the rule when proposed;

Whereas section 601 of title 5, United States Code (relating

to regulatory flexibility) requires consultation with the

Office of Advocacy before using an alternative definition

of small business; and

Whereas more than 90 percent of the businesses that would

be affected by the Administration’s rule are classified as

small businesses in the regulations of the Small Business

Administration: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the

4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration relating

5 to the occupational exposure to methylene chloride, and

6 such rule shall have no force or effect.

Æ
No. 57789.

protests 141136-K/1703, etc. (Chicago).

#### Caron Spinning Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Clean Content per cent” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MAURICE DALTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARGENT PAUL ESTES et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5820RJB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the State of Washington’s motion to

dismiss, the response and reply, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold,

objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The State of Washington is DISMISSED as the state is not a person within the

meaning of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for any defendants

who have appeared, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05820-RJB Document 31 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 1
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1542/2006

of 13 October 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 44 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 89, 28.3.2006, p. 11. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 769/2006 (OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 19).

(3)OJ L 205, 31.7.2001, p. 18. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1442/2002 (OJ L 212, 8.8.2002, p. 5).

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX IV

(Quotas referred to in Article 3)

----
EXHIBIT 10.2.3


                          SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1988
                     UNION CARBIDE LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


          The 1988 Union Carbide Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows:

          1. The first paragraph of Section 5.3 of the Plan is hereby amended by
deleting the phrase ", but only to the extent  permitted  under  Section 5.5" at
the end thereof.

          2. The second  paragraph of Section 5.3 of the Plan is hereby  amended
to read as follows:

               "An option is only  exercisable by a participant  while
          the participant is in active employment with the Corporation
          except  (i)  in  the  case  of  a  participant's   death  or
          Retirement,  (ii) during a three-year  period  commencing on
          the date of a participant's termination of employment by the
          Corporation other than for cause,  (iii) during a three-year
          period  commencing  on  the  date  of  termination,  by  the
          participant or the Corporation, of employment after a Change
          in Control of the  Corporation , unless such  termination of
          employment is for cause,  or (iv) if the  Committee  decides
          that it is in the best interest of the Corporation to permit
          individual  exceptions.  An  option  may  not  be  exercised
          pursuant to this paragraph  after the expiration date of the
          option."

          3. Section 5.5 of the Plan is hereby deleted, and Sections 5.6 through
5.8 are hereby redesignated as Sections 5.5 through 5.7, respectively.

          4.  Section  6.4 of the Plan is hereby  amended by  deleting  the last
sentence thereof.

          5.  Section  11.1(ii)  of the Plan is hereby  amended by  substituting
"20%" for "35%" whenever "35%" appears therein.

          6.  Section  11.7 of the Plan is hereby  amended by deleting  the last
sentence  thereof,  and by  substituting  "20%" for "35%" whenever "35%" appears
therein.


                                       2

<PAGE>

          7. The  amendments set forth herein shall be effective as of August 1,
1989.


Signed this 8 day of August, 1989.


                                              UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION


                                              By: /s/M. A. Kessinger




Attest:



____________________

<PAGE>
# Official Journal L 73/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 73 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5817 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 73

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5817 March 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/366 of Amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 1 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/367 of Amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 366 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/368 of Amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 460 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/369 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 468 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/370 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 493 |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/371 of Amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 | 501 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/366 of Amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

1

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/367 of Amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

366

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/368 of Amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

460

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/369 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

468

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/370 of Amending budget No 6 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

493

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2015/371 of Amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

501

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Any revenue provided for in Article 21(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.

Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 67201.

protests 60/19959, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Marbro Lamp Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron ornaments (brackets, sconces, lamp bases, etc.) similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 2289), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 3:05-cr-05884-RBL Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-cr-05884-RBL Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-cr-05884-RBL Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cr-05884-RBL Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cr-05884-RBL Document 30 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 17 5 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATALIE AMANDA RICH ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 2 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2020

10/26/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0175
No. 55734.

protests 167940-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*275Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found.were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not •assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIGITRAN SYSTEMS,
INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES JANUARY 31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          49,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,000
<INVENTORY>                                    320,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               665,000
<PP&E>                                       1,427,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 661,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,581,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,044,000
<BONDS>                                        970,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                       112,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,504,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,581,000
<SALES>                                      2,487,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,487,000
<CGS>                                        1,457,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,457,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             278,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (538,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (538,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (538,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
No. 51478.

#### Protests 992962-G, etc., of Jordan Marsh Co. et al. (Boston and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 66625.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/30721 and 61/1406 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of porcelain furniture sets similar in ail material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 1695), the merchandise was held dutiable under paragraph 1513 of the act or under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*at the rate in *effect*at *the*time the respective items were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 11

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 20, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
               Providing for an adjournment of the House.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, January 
19, 1999, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 2, 
1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 52771.

#### Max Littwitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 140471-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,937
<PP&E>                                          32,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,555
<BONDS>                                        103,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,588
<SALES>                                        189,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,940
<CGS>                                          160,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,774
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,453
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

June 21, 1946

No. 51204.

#### Protests 45174-K, etc., of J. R. Tolibia et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2015026EN.01002901.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/29

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — CMBG v Commission and ECB

(Case T-290/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 026/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CMBG Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | CMBG Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

CMBG Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---