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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1389

To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to provide greater 
                     protection to servicemembers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

   Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Tester, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
    Kaine, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Warren, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Franken, Ms. 
Klobuchar, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Hirono, 
and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to provide greater 
                     protection to servicemembers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Consumer Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION.

    Section 1002(12) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5481(12)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (Q), by striking ``; and'' and 
        inserting a semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (R), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(S) sections 101, 106, 107 (except with respect 
                to bailments), 108 (except with respect to insurance), 
                201 (except with respect to child custody proceedings), 
                207, 301, 302, 303, 305, and 305A of the Servicemembers 
                Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 3911, 3917, 3918, 3919, 
                3931, 3937, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, and 3956).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1   **Date:** January 27, 2006 **Contact:** Charles P. Huffman   **Release:** Immediately **Phone:** 251-476-2720**EnergySouth, Inc. reports fiscal 2006 first quarter earnings and announces declaration of dividend**The Board of Directors of EnergySouth, Inc., at a meeting held January 27, 2006, declared aquarterly dividend on the outstanding Common Stock of $0.215 per share, to be paid April 1, 2006 toholders of record as of March 15, 2006.Net income for EnergySouth, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 was $4,485,000, or$0.56 per diluted share, as compared to net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 of$4,316,000, or $0.54 per diluted share. The increase in earnings of $0.02 per share is primarilyattributed to the Company’s Bay Gas subsidiary and merchandising-related activities of its MobileGas subsidiary.Bay Gas’ earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were $0.16 per diluted share, an increaseof $0.01 per diluted share as compared to the same period last year. The increase in earnings wasdue primarily to expenses capitalized for the construction of its third underground natural gasstorage cavern.Earnings per share from Mobile Gas’ distribution business for the quarter ended December 31, 2005were unchanged when compared to the same prior year period, with diluted earnings per share of$0.38 for the first fiscal quarters of each of 2006 and 2005. The current year quarter resultsinclude a one time credit to operating expenses related to postemployment health insurance ofapproximately $0.03 per diluted share.Earnings from other business operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were $0.02 perdiluted share as compared to $0.01 per diluted share for the same period last year. The increaseof $0.01 per diluted share is due to an increase in merchandise sales by Mobile Gas and relatedactivities.EnergySouth, Inc. is the holding company for a family of energy businesses. Mobile Gas purchases,sells, and transports natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Mobile,Alabama and surrounding areas. Mobile Gas also provides merchandise sales, service, and financing.MGS Storage Services is the general partner of Bay Gas Storage Company, a limited partnership thatprovides underground storage and delivery of natural gas for Mobile Gas and other customers.EnergySouth Services is the general partner of Southern Gas Transmission Company, which is engagedin the intrastate transportation of natural gas.

 
**ENERGYSOUTH, INC.**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the attached

communication shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

_______________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 6 Filed 07/31/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017086EN.01002601.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — Mast-Jägermeister v EUIPO (Beakers)

(Case T-16/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Application for Community designs representing beakers - ‘Representation suitable for reproduction’ - Lack of precision of the representation with regard to the scope of the protection sought - Refusal to remedy the deficiencies - Refusal to attribute a date of filing - Articles 36 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 4(1)(e) and 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002))

(2017/C 086/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2015 (Case R 1842/2015 3), concerning applications for the registration of beakers as Community designs.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

1

---
## 1995 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-18-1995 

# C he metr on C or p . v

. J ones

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 94-3371

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1995 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C he me tr on C or p . v

. J one s " (1995). 1995 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 311. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995/311

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 94-3371

CHEMETRON CORPORATION

v.

PHYLLIS JASKEY JONES; PAMELA JO SWANSINGER; SANDRA JASKEY HUJARSKI; PATRICIA HUJARSKI; TERESA HUJARSKI ROSS; JANICE JASKEY BUTVIN; FRANK BUTVIN; ROBERT BUTVIN; BRIAN BUTVIN; SUSAN BUTVIN; WALTER ANIELSKI; ARLENE VANS; YVONNE VANS BEKOSCKE; ANTHONY VANS; GREGORY VANS; CAROL SCHULTZ; MARY SHAFFER; BRITTANY

CULL; STEPHANIE SCHAFFER,

Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-01582)

BEFORE: SCIRICA, ROTH and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges

Argued on February 3, 1995

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case,

filed on December 18, 1995, be amended as follows:

On page 15, line 16, delete the word "known" and replace it with the word "unknown". The full

## sentence should now read:

## For these reasons, we will affirm

the district court's rulings that claimants were unknown creditors and that Chemetron's publication notice was sufficient.

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge

Dated: December 21, 1995
Exhibit 31-6
**FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel G. Brudzynski, Controller and Chief Financial Officer of The DetroitEdison Securitization Funding LLC, certify that:          1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Detroit EdisonSecuritization Funding LLC;          2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report;          3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;          4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:           a.      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;           b.      (Intentionally omitted)           c.      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and           d.      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and          5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):           a.      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and           b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ DANIEL G. BRUDZYNSKI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. :

ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY :

SETTLEMENT TRUST :

: CIVIL ACTION

vs. : NO. 02-CV-4360

:

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE :

COMPANY :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of October 2007, upon

consideration of the Uncontested Emergency Motion For A Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference

(Doc. No. 62), it is ORDERED as follows:

1. An Initial Pretrial Conference will be held on October 22, 2007 at 3:30

p.m. in Chambers (Room 8614). All trial counsel and unrepresented

parties shall attend. Counsel participating in the conference must be

authorized and empowered to discuss and make binding decisions with

regard to all aspects of this case. 

2. On or before Friday, October 12, 2007, the parties shall file with the Court

a written Joint Case Report which shall include the following information:

a. A brief statement describing the facts of the case and the

basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties and the

action; 

b. A brief statement of all causes of action, the essential

elements of each cause of action, and the relief sought;

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 64 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
c. A brief statement of the defenses asserted and the essential

elements of each affirmative defense;

d. Whether the parties have complied with the disclosure

requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a)(1) and, if not the date on

which such disclosures will be completed;

e. Whether all necessary parties have been properly joined,

and if not, the name of any such party and each party’s

respective position of why such party is or is not necessary

to the action; 

f. Whether settlement negotiations have taken place and each

party’s respective position on settlement;

g. A list of all counsel who will be attending the Scheduling

Conference identifying the party whom each attorney

represents.

h. The parties competing proposals for discovery schedules,

as well as a brief statement of all procedural and legal

disputes that the parties have not been able to resolve

through pretrial negotiation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 64 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,869,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,214,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      85,482,647
<DEPRECIATION>                              30,227,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             154,929,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,391,771
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,913,642)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               154,929,129
<SALES>                                     13,924,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,924,291
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,836,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,429,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,697,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,697,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017249EN.01002702.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-326/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Tafel - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision))

(2017/C 249/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany) (represented by: M. Nitschke, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2016 (Case R 248/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Tiertafel Deutschland and Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

---
# C_2017402EN.01002801.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2017 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)

(Case T-318/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SDC-444S - Earlier non-registered national word mark SDC-444S - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence establishing the content of national law - Rule 19(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(d) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat, J. Lipinsky, J. Hagenberg, T. Hollerbach and C. Nitschke, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 (Case R 1573/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Moravia Consulting and Citizen Systems Europe

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moravia Consulting spol. s r. o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1 [for the pre-Regulation AB period from and including July 1, 2005 to and including January 31, 2006 (the last day of the distribution period before which the BA Credit Card Trust first issued securities subject to Regulation AB)]        Exhibit 31.1 [for the period from and including July 1, 2005 to and including January 31, 2006] Certification I, Marcie E. Copson-Hall, certify that: 1.
        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the BA Credit Card Trust;
 2.
        Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
 3.
        Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
 4.
        I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that servicing agreement; and
 5.
        The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.
 In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and JPMorgan Chase Bank.  Date:  May 9, 2007By:
        /s/ Marcie E. Copson-HallName:
        Marcie E. Copson-HallTitle:
        Senior Vice President(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY, :

: CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: NO. 05-281

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE :

INSURANCE COMPANY, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23 day of March, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant Commonwealth Land rd

Title Insurance Company’s Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for Certification of

Interlocutory Appeal (Docket No. 63), and Plaintiff Nationwide Life Insurance Company’s Response

(Docket No. 64), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED;

2. Defendant’s request to certify the Court’s February 17, 2011 Memorandum and Order for

interlocutory appeal is GRANTED, and the Court certifies the following question as a controlling question

of law, as to which there is a difference of opinion, and as to which an immediate appeal will expedite the

resolution of the litigation:

Whether the American Land Title Association 9 Endorsement provides title

insurance coverage for whole instruments listed in Schedule B or whether

the scope of coverage is limited to particular types of encumbrances.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in this case are stayed pending interlocutory

appeal.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter 

RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.