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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 93 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 93

    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
            Resources in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2017

    Mr. Bishop of Utah (for himself and Mr. Grijalva) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural 
            Resources in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Natural Resources (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $13,758,344 for the One Hundred 
Fifteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $6,879,172 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2017, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2018; and
            (2) not more than $6,879,172 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2018, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2019.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32(ii)

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

      In connection  with the  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Vincent  DeCrescenzo,  Sr.,  the Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

      (1) the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2006

                                            /s/ Vincent DeCrescenzo
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr. CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY CIVIL ACTION 

v. No. 04-3509 

FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. 

ORDER MICHAEi E /'LJ'17 ,... By - · \ '--, v 1 erk ...,,,,, =Dep. Clerk 

AND NOW, this 29thdayofMay, 2015, uponconsiderationoftheparties' respective papers 

and the record, 1 it is hereby ORDERED that "Defendant's Motion to Preclude Admission of 

Plaintiff's Summary Evidence" (doc. no. 650), which was submitted by Defendant Travelers 

Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (collectively, 

"Travelers"), is DENIED. 

It is further ORDERED and DECLARED that Plaintiff General Refractories Company's 

proffered trial exhibits - the "Claims Database" and the "Queue," as identified in the Memorandum 

that accompanies this Order-are summaries of business records admissible under the Federal Rules 

of Evidence, Rules 803(6) and 1006, subject to their proper authentication by a records custodian 

or another qualified witness, and subject to proper, specific objections at trial. 

BY THE COURT: 

L~fP1'/ff.o £,y,,.L'LJ UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGJ,. -

1 Defendant's Motion and Brief (doc. nos. 650, 650-1), with Exhibits ("Exs.") 3-5 (doc. nos. 650-3 

through 650-7); Plaintiff's Response (doc. no. 656); Affidavit of Michael Conley, dated Apr. 1 7, 2015 (doc. 

no. 646), with Exs. 1-8 (doc. nos. 646-1through646-8); Declaration of Michael Conley, dated May 1, 2015 

(doc. no. 657), with Exs. A-K (doc. nos. 657-1 through 657-11); Affidavit of Michael Conley, dated Sept. 

16, 2011, with Exs. 1 and 2 (doc. no. 364), and Defendant's Reply (doc. no. 659).
Case 2:04-cv-02307-MAM Document 1 Filed 05/26/04 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02307-MAM Document 1 Filed 05/26/04 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02307-MAM Document 1 Filed 05/26/04 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02307-MAM Document 1 Filed 05/26/04 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:04-cv-02307-MAM Document 1 Filed 05/26/04 Page 5 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DIANA RIVERA O’BRYANT, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 03-CV-06635

 )

vs. )

 )

CITY OF READING; )

JOSEPH EPPIHIMER; )

JEFFREY WHITE; )

NAN BALMER; )

JESUS PENA; )

ERIC GALOSI; and )

TAMMIE KIPP, )

 )

Defendants )

O R D E R

NOW, this 11th day of August, 2005, upon consideration

of Defendants City of Reading, Joseph Eppihimer, Jeffrey White,

Nan Blamer, Jesús Peña, Tammie Kipp, and Eric Galosi’s Motion for

Summary Judgment filed September 20, 2004; upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants City of

Reading, Joseph Eppihimer, Jeffrey White, Nan Blamer, Jesús Peña,

Tammie Kipp, and Eric Galosi’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which

memorandum was filed October 8, 2004; upon consideration of the

briefs of the parties; upon consideration of the pleadings,

exhibits, depositions and record papers; and for the reasons

expressed in the accompanying Opinion, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint is dismissed.

Case 2:03-cv-06635-JKG Document 47 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-06635-JKG Document 47 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51911.

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 42745-K/89659, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Poliowing the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
From: <French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Christopher R. Bryant" <cbryant@lawbc.com>

CC: Mike Buckantz <MBuckantz@rsrcorp.com>, Donna Lazzari <Donna.Lazzari@erg.com>, 

<michael.burr@erg.com>, <Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: 2/15/2011 10:49 AM

Subject: RE: Emissions data from the Rotary furnace

Hi Chris and Mike,

 Thanks for the emails. Does RSR operate the rotary furnace on

a regular basis? If not, what is the operating status, frequency,

plans, etc...

Thanks.

Chuck

 

From: "Christopher R. Bryant" <cbryant@lawbc.com> 

 

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: Mike Buckantz <MBuckantz@rsrcorp.com>, Donna Lazzari <Donna.Lazzari@erg.com>, 

<michael.burr@erg.com>, Nathan 

 Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Homer Hine <HHine@rsrcorp.com> 

 

Date: 02/14/2011 12:18 PM 

 

Subject: RE: Emissions data from the Rotary furnace 

 

Chuck,

You're memory is correct. RSR was able to conduct only two successful

test runs. A point of clarification: those runs also included emissions

from the kiln. RSR has not conducted additional tests on the rotary

furnace.

Hope this helps.

Chris

Christopher R. Bryant

BERGESON & CAMPBELL, P.C.

1203 Nineteenth Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20036-2401

cbryant@lawbc.com

(202) 557-3818 (phone)

(202) 355-8281 (cell)
(202) 557-3836 (fax)

Please visit our Web Site at

http://www.lawbc.com

This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you

are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e-mail and

delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others.

-----Original Message-----

From: French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:20 AM

To: Christopher R. Bryant

Cc: Mike Buckantz; Donna Lazzari; michael.burr@erg.com;

Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Emissions data from the Rotary furnace

Hi Chris and Mike,

 I have another question. I recall that RSR submitted emissions

test data for the Rotary furnace that included only 2 successful test

runs. Correct? Since that time, has RSR completed any additional

tests of that furnace? If so, could you please send us those test

results ASAP.

Thanks.

Chuck
Case No. 13,694.

#### SWIFT et al. v. The ALBUS.

[N. Y. Times.

June 9, 1856.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 31, 1856.

Maritime Lif.n — Stores — Furnished to Charterer — Charge—Liability of Vessel.

This was a libel filed by the libelants [Frederick Swift and others] to recover the sum of $4,010, for supplies and passenger stores alleged by the libelants to have been furnished by them to the ship.

Owen & Vose, for libelants.

Beebe & Donohue, for claimants.

HELD BY THE COURT:

The ship was chartered to one Pelletier upon certain terms. He was to load the ship, and she was to sail for his benefit, the owners to appoint the captain. The owners ran *up a*bill of stores for the ship, which were paid. But the stores in question, it is evident, were furnished, in part, on the credit of Pelletier. There was no personal credit given to the owners for them. But it is said that credit was also given to the ship, and therefore the libelants have a right to look to her for payment. Now, to enable them to recover, they must show — First, that they did charge the ship; and. second, that they had the right to charge her. I should doubt very much', on the evidence, whether they ever did charge them to the ship. Other stores were charged to the ship Albus but these were charged to the ship Albus’ passengers. But. suppose they did look to the ship; had they the right to do so? Pelletier was not the agent of the owners, and did not contract for the stores as such; and the owner told the. libelants, when they furnished the stores, that the ship should not be responsible for them. The libelants, then, did not look to the ship, and, if they did, they had no right to do so. Libel dismissed, with costs.
# C_2017086EN.01002202.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — RMF Financial Holdings Sàrl v Heta Asset Resolution AG

(Case C-282/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 086/28)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

1

---
# C_2016090EN.01002101.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/21

---

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)

(Case T-778/15)

(2016/C 090/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: It Works S.A. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

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: KESA Holdings Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 ‘IT it WORKS’ — Application for registration No 10 359 222

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2106/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17/06/2014 in opposition proceedings No B 001988727 with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17/06/2014 in opposition proceedings No B 001988727 with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

| — | refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 010359222 in respect of all the services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 010359222 in respect of all the services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

| — | charge the OHIM with the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

charge the OHIM with the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

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.

---
J-S04014-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GREGORY HARVEY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 705 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 29, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009209-2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 29, 2017

I join the well-reasoned Majority but write separately to express my 

concerns about the current state of the law relative to Possessing 

Instruments of Crime, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), (d).

We have no choice but to be bound by the precedent set by this Court 

in Commonwealth v. Williams, 808 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa.Super. 2002) which 

held that a walkie-talkie was not an instrument of crime because it was not 

used in the crime itself, but rather only facilitated the drug sales. 

The law must recognize that technology advances provide the criminal 

element with many means of communication, such as cell phone, instant 

messaging, twitter, email, and private Facebook messages, for example. 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S04014-17

- 2 -

To allow a specific means of communication, such as a cell phone, to 

be used to “facilitate” a crime but not be considered an “instrument of 

crime” frustrates legislative intent and is a distinction without a difference. 

Clearly, the telephone used to facilitate the delivery of cocaine herein 

should qualify as an instrument of crime “possessed by the actor under 

circumstances not manifestly appropriate” for lawful uses. A telephone IS 

an instrument of crime when it is used as part and parcel of a drug deal or 

other crime. 

I urge the legislature to amend 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907 to allow for cell 

phones and other instruments of technology to be “instruments of crime” 

when used for an illegal purpose and specifically include language that using 

such instruments to “facilitate” a crime comes under the definition of 

instruments of crime.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                         582
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  82,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,705)
<INVENTORY>                                    51,935
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,761
<PP&E>                                         40,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                 25,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,514
<BONDS>                                        327,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          156
<PREFERRED>                                    16,002
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (147,753)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,370
<SALES>                                        250,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,849
<CGS>                                          166,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               53,899
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             20,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2018142EN.01000501.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Stanisław Pieńkowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-307/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 131 - Article 146(1)(b) - Article 147 - Exemptions on exportation - Article 273 - Legislation of a Member State making the benefit of the exemption subject to the attainment of a minimum level of turnover or the conclusion of an agreement with a person authorised to make VAT refunds to travellers))

(2018/C 142/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanisław Pieńkowski

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131, Article 146(1)(b) and Articles 147 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the context of a supply of goods for export to be carried in the personal luggage of travellers, the vendor, a taxable person, must have attained a minimum level of turnover in the preceding tax year, or have concluded an agreement with a person authorised to refund VAT to travellers, where the mere failure to meet those conditions results in the definitive loss for the vendor of the exemption in relation to that supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24633]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Limited Competition: Collaborative 
Partnership to Advance Global Health Research (U01 Clinical Trial 
Not Allowed).
    Date: November 29, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G62, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Eleazar Cohen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G62, Rockville, MD 
20892, (240) 669-5081, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#187d7b77707d7658767179717c36767170367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff9a9c90979a91bf91969e969bd1919697d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 2, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24633 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 62999.

#### Trade Distributors, Inc., and Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/6837 and 58/7137 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, except that the merchandise herein is in chief value of shell, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**HASAN IB ABDULLAH-TALIB,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 758 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
No. 66725.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/31217, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following Abstract 54925, the protests were dismissed.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Abstract 66724.