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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 836 

Expressing support for designation of April 24, 2018, as ‘‘National Business 

Traveler Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2018 

Mr. HIMES (for himself, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. TIPTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of April 24, 2018, as 

‘‘National Business Traveler Day’’. 

Whereas business travelers represent a vital component to the 

economic health of the United States economy today and 

in the future; 

Whereas business travel comprises an estimated $424 billion 

annual share of the United States gross domestic product; 

Whereas two million business trips are taken each day in the 

United States; 

Whereas close to half of all business travelers are women and 

73 percent are under the age of 55; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 836 IH 

Whereas business travelers are significantly affected by travel 

problems such as changing weather, equipment malfunction, and routine delays and cancellations; 

Whereas business travelers are often more sensitive to efficiency, timetables, and consistency of service than leisure 

travelers; 

Whereas an estimated 70 percent of business travelers work 

for companies that have no policies on supplier usage, resulting in such business travelers making their own travel 

purchases for air, hotel, and ground transportation, and 

often needing to fend for themselves when problems occur 

during travel; and 

Whereas this segment of business travel is experiencing an 

annual growth rate of 6 percent: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Busi3 ness Traveler Day’’; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe ‘‘National Business Traveler Day’’ with 

6 appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 55137.

#### A. G. Spalding & Bros., Inc., and Tice & Lynch, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 164142-K and 161153-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 52847.

#### Geo. J. Higginson et al. *v.*United States,

protests 53261-K, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Cite as Hunt v. Sheldon , 127 Ohio St.3d 14, 2010-Ohio-4991.]

H UNT , A PPELLANT , v. S HELDON , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Cite as Hunt v. Sheldon , 127 Ohio St.3d 14, 2010-Ohio-4991.] Court of appeals’ judgment dismissi ng petition for writ of habeas corpus affirmed. (No. 2010-0971

— Submitted October 13, 2010

— Decided October 20, 2010.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-10-28.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the amended petition of appellant, Rickie Lee Hunt, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from prison. “ ‘[H]abeas corpus is proper in the criminal context only if the petitioner is entitled to immediate release from prison or some other physical confinement.’ ” Keith v. Bobby , 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶ 12, quoting Scanlon v. Brunsman , 112 Ohio St.3d 151, 2006-Ohio-6522, 858 N.E.2d 411, ¶ 4. Hunt’s prison sentence has not expired,
and he has no inherent or c onstitutional right to be released before its expiration,
State ex rel. White v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 98 Ohio St.3d 290, 2003-Ohio773, 783 N.E.2d 900, ¶ 3; Hattie v. Anderson (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 232, 233, 626 N.E.2d 67 (“R.C. 2967.03 creates no expectancy of parole or a constitutional liberty interest sufficient to establish a right of procedural due process”); Layne v.
Ohio Adult Parole Auth. , 97 Ohio St.3d 456, 2002-Ohio-6719, 780 N.E.2d 548, ¶ 28 (Ohio Adult Parole Authority “has wide-r anging discretion in parole matters”). We deny appellant’s motion for oral argument and appointment of counsel. Judgment affirmed.
B ROWN , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 __________________ Rickie Lee Hunt, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney Genera l, and Stephanie Watson, Principal Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAGALY DIAZ, et al : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

:

THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, et al : NO. 02-1446

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This day of September, 2004, it having been reported

that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court

(effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

BY THE COURT

 

CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Civ 2 (7/83)

41.1(b)

Case 2:04-cv-01267-CMR Document 26 Filed 09/17/04 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.14

                             [LOGO OF CHAMPIONLYTE]

2999 NE 191st Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (561) 394-8881 Fax: (561) 394-8288

Mr. Andre Dawson 6770 SW 101st Street Miami, FL 33156

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This  agreement,  dated May 20, 2003, is to serve as a letter of intent  between
ChampionLyte Beverages,  Inc. ("ChampionLyte" or "the Company") and Andre Dawson
("Dawson"), with respect to the personal service of Dawson.

Whereas  ChampionLyte wishes to retain Dawson, a retired  Professional  Baseball
Player,  to represent the  ChampionLyte  products,  the  following  outlines the
agreed terms of that agreement:

1.       SERVICES-  Dawson agrees to provide his  endorsement to  ChampionLyte's
         products  whereby  the  Company  may use  Dawson's  likeness,  voice or
         performance,  and  biographical  material  solely  for the  purpose  of
         advertising and promoting ChampionLyte's products. Any use o f National
         Baseball League logos or trademarks, are strictly prohibited.

         Dawson   will  be   available   %or  print,   radio,   and   television
         photography/video  sessions twice per year. Additionally,  ChampionLyte
         shall be entitled to a minimum of 6  promotional  days each year.  This
         would  include press  conferences,  major trade show  appearances,  and
         business  trips  to  promote  a major  sale,  as  well as any  consumer
         appearances. (This would include any autograph sessions, and time spent
         with winners of promotional events.)

         All scheduling of said appearances will be considerate of Dawson's time
         and  availability.  All advertising  material/media  and press releases
         will be cleared with Dawson or his agent prior to release. ChampionLyte
         will provide all  transportation  and lodging costs associated with any
         such travel.

2.       TERM- The duration of this agreement shall be a period of one year from
         the date  hereof.  It is also  understood  that For the duration of the
         said period,  Dawson will not engage in a similar arrangement involving
         any  parties,  companies  or products  considered  Lo be of a competing
         nature.

<Page>

3.       COMPENSATION-   in  consideration  of  the  obligations  set  forth  in
         paragraph 1,  ChampionLyte  agrees to pay Dawson  100,000  unrestricted
         common shares of ChampionLyte. The first payment of 50,OOO will be made
         within  seven days of the date of this  agreement.  The  second  50,000
         shall be issued on the six-month anniversary of the agreement.

If the following accurately sets forth your understanding, please sign below and
return.

CHAMPIONLYTE BEVERAGES, INC.

BY: /s/ David Goldberg
    -----------------------------------
PRINT:  DAVID GOLDBERG
      ---------------------------------
DATE:   5/20/03
      ---------------------------------


ANDRE DAWSON

BY: /s/ Andre Dawson
    -----------------------------------
PRINT:  ANDRE DAWSON
      ---------------------------------
DATE:   5/29/03
      ---------------------------------
No. 58866.

protests 244478-K, etc. (New York).

#### Artmart Linen Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of doilies similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58520, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2015245EN.01004101.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/41

---

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)

(Case T-268/15)

(2015/C 245/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 567 021

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2063/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Report #:DOE/EIA-0554(2009)

Release date: March 2009

Next release date: March 2010 

Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1904

_____________________________ A

VERY G. P ATTERSON S R

. ,
Petitioner
,

v.

J ULIE L. J ONES , Secretary
, Florida Department of Corrections
, Financial Department, D EPART MENT OF R ISK M ANAGEMENT and Assistant Attorney General, E LIZABETH V AN DE B ERG , et al

. , Respondent s

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

June 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of mandamus is den ied on the merits.

R OWE , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Avery G. Patterson Sr., pro s e , Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee
, for Respondent s

.
(Reap. Dec. 10934)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 717611; 838620-1/3; 921481-1/5.

*587(Decided March 24, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (See. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Dexter Keith Royston v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00605-CR

Trial court case number: 73277

Trial court: 300th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the abovereferenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a 

copy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from 

the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the 

reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk 

shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon 

which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. 

Appellant’s response to his appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 

days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: February 18, 2016
# C_2015381EN.01004601.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/46

---

Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)

(Case T-389/15)

(2015/C 381/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘J&JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 411 808

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1355/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Office:

| — | to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

| — | to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 776 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 776

Expressing support for designation of the first Saturday in October as 
``National Animal Rescue Day'' to create awareness of the importance of 
 adoption, educate on the importance of spaying and neutering animals, 
and the encouragement of animal adoptions throughout the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2018

Mr. Norcross submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of the first Saturday in October as 
``National Animal Rescue Day'' to create awareness of the importance of 
 adoption, educate on the importance of spaying and neutering animals, 
and the encouragement of animal adoptions throughout the United States.

Whereas up to 6,000,000 cats and dogs are placed into shelters every year and 
        between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 are euthanized;
Whereas there are between 3,000 to 4,000 animal shelters throughout the United 
        States in need of medical supplies, blankets, towels, cleaning supplies, 
        food, and educational materials about owning a pet;
Whereas increased knowledge and awareness of animal rescue programs throughout 
        the United States will significantly reduce the number of cats and dogs 
        euthanized and reduce the number of animals returned to a shelter who 
        have been rescued;
Whereas loving families welcome pets to their new ``forever home'' every day, 
        but more adoption is needed;
Whereas lowering the number of animals in need of rescue, by spaying and 
        neutering, can help alleviate the overcrowding of our Nation's shelters;
Whereas years of animal abandonment has left thousands of homeless pets in 
        overpopulated shelters and rescues;
Whereas a ``National Animal Rescue Day'' would encourage the rescue of animals 
        like Winslow, a basset hound who spent his first 8 months of life 
        starved and confined in a cage so small that his rear legs were unable 
        to fully develop and then was placed in multiple shelters before being 
        adopted into a loving home; and
Whereas the first Saturday in October would be an appropriate day to designate 
        as ``National Animal Rescue Day'' to be celebrated through adoption 
        events, festivals, and charitable giving which will increase revenues 
        for shelters and pet adoptions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of a ``National Animal Rescue Day'' to create awareness for 
animal rescue programs throughout the year and address the challenge of 
overpopulation through continued spaying and neutering.
                                 <all>
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 15

- 5169

_____________________________
D AUNTE O ATS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

. October 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Daunte Oats raises two issues on appeal : whether t he trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing and whether Florida’s 10

- 20

- Life statute is un constitutional as applied to juveniles

. We affirm as to the second issue, but reverse and remand as to the first because it appears no competency hearing oc curred. As the State concedes , a determination was made that reasonable grounds existed that Oats was not competent to proceed, but that no competency hearing occurred. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc competen cy evaluation; if one cannot be done, Oats is entitled to a new trial. See, e.g.
, Brooks v. State , 180 So. 3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).2 M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Candice Kaye Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Gainesville, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel
, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Before the First Division,

August 13, 1948

No. 52495.

protest 78451-K (San Francisco).

#### Pacific Dry Goods Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the articles in question are not chiefly used for the amusement of children and that they are manufactures in chief value of wood. Upon the record presented it was held that the merchandise covered by items HW 80 in case No. 2175, items HW 95 in case No. 2176, and items 899 and 900 in case No. 2198 is properly dutiable at 33% percent under paragraph 412, as claimed.