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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1186

   To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to designate certain 
   entities as centers of excellence for domestic maritime workforce 
            training and education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 18, 2017

  Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. 
   Kennedy) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to designate certain 
   entities as centers of excellence for domestic maritime workforce 
            training and education, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Domestic Maritime Centers of 
Excellence Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. DOMESTIC MARITIME CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

    (a) Designation Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation is 
authorized to designate community and technical colleges with a 
maritime training program and maritime training centers operated by or 
under the supervision of a State, if located in the United States along 
the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Arctic Ocean, Bering 
Sea, Gulf of Alaska, or Great Lakes, as centers of excellence for 
domestic maritime workforce training and education.
    (b) Assistance.--
            (1) Types.--The Secretary may provide to an entity 
        designated as a center of excellence under subsection (a)--
                    (A) technical assistance; and
                    (B) surplus Federal equipment and assets.
            (2) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
        technical assistance under paragraph (1) to assist an entity 
        designated as a center of excellence under subsection (a) to 
        expand the capacity of the entity to train the domestic 
        maritime workforce of the United States, including by--
                    (A) admitting additional students;
                    (B) recruiting and training faculty;
                    (C) expanding facilities;
                    (D) creating new maritime career pathways; and
                    (E) awarding students credit for prior experience, 
                including military service.
                                 <all>
```
No. 55850.

protest 163062-K (New York).

#### John Wanamaker, N. Y. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COTTMAN TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, : CIVIL ACTION

LLC, et al., : NO. 02-4376

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

DAVID FAULKNER, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that a hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary

Injunction is SCHEDULED for Monday, August 5, 2002 at 4:00 p.m.

in Courtroom 12A, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19106.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 8 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 61764.

#### Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc., and Roberts, Reilly & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

protests 317995-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Jasper cameos the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60566, the merchandise was held classifiable as articles of stoneware, other than tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, within the class of such merchandise in paragraph 211, as modified, *infra,*dutiable as follows: (1) The merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to September 10, 1955, valued at $3 or more but not more than $10 per dozen, at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 211, as modified either by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), or by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52857); (2) the merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after September 10, 1955, valued at $3 or more but not more than $10 per dozen, at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 30 percent ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 53877); and (3) the merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after July 6, 1951, valued at more than $10 per dozen, at 5 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 52739.
Exhibit 32.1

                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 of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Gilad Gat,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.




By: /s/ Gilad Gat
    ---------------------------
        Gilad Gat
        Chief Executive Officer
        Chief Financial Officer
        May 13,2005
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                             MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III
                                                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.
                                                               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                    (dollars in thousands)


                                             FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   MARCH 28, 2003                            MARCH 29, 2002
                                          ----------------------------------       ----------------------------------
                                          MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH          MERRILL LYNCH        MERRILL LYNCH
                                           PREFERRED         PREFERRED               PREFERRED            PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST III   FUNDING III, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST III    FUNDING III, L.P.
                                         -----------------  -----------------     -----------------    ----------------
<S>                                     <C>                 <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Earnings                                    $ 13,531           $ 15,794              $ 13,531           $ 15,838
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========



Fixed charges                               $      -           $      -              $      -           $      -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                13,125             13,531                13,125             13,531
                                            --------           --------              --------           --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $ 13,125           $ 13,531              $ 13,125           $ 13,531
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03               1.17                  1.03               1.17







</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SOMAR SINGH
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 662

[ February 6, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Charles A. Schwab , Judge; L.T. Case No. 56

- 2017

- CF

000932 A

.

Arthur Brandt of Baginski Brandt & Brandt, Attorneys at Law, Port St. Lucie, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNER and K UNTZ
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002

I,
Blair Sinton, the Group Finance Director of Gala Group Holdings Public Limited Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge (i) the Form 20-F fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gala Group Holdings Public Limited Company.

|Date: January 24, 2003
/s/BLAIR SINTONBlair Sinton Group Finance Director |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Before the First Division,

February 27, 1946

No. 50910.

#### Protest 89623-K of Hoyt Shepston *&*Sciaroni (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

When the case was called for trial plaintiff’s counsel produced two bottles which were ¿harked for identification but were not received in evidence due to the fact that the witnesses were unable to state definitely that they were taken from the importation in question or to identify them as exactly like the imported bottles. At the adjourned hearing, plaintiff’s counsel introduced no further testimony as to the admissibility of the exhibits for identification, but formally offered them in evidence, stating that he was unable to obtain samples from the importation in question. The court was of the opinion that these bottles were not admissible as exhibits. On the record it was held that plaintiff had not met the burden which rested upon it of proving that the action of the collector was wrong and that its claim was right. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2017269EN.01001702.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/17

---

Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)

(Case T-179/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2017/C 269/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | L’Oréal shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2016 Reporting

Supplement Section II

PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT USSGL ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 2016

Account Title: Capitalized Loan Interest Receivable - Non-Credit Reform 

Account Number: 135100 

Normal Balance: Debit 

Definition: The amount of accrued interest due on a non-credit reform loan that has been 

capitalized. Capitalized interest, like loan principal, is subject to interest charges until such time 

as the debt is paid or otherwise settled. Also used to record the related receivable resulting from 

the accretion of the original issue discount for Black Lung Disability Trust Fund Obligations. 

This account does not close at yearend. 

Justification: Update definition to clarify its use for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 

Obligations

Account Title: Capitalized Loan Interest Payable - Non-Credit Reform 

Account Number: 251100 

Normal Balance: Credit 

Definition: The amount of accrued interest owed on a non-credit reform loan that has been 

capitalized. Capitalized interest, like loan principal, is subject to interest charges until such time 

as the debt is paid or otherwise settled. Also used to record the related payable resulting from the 

accretion of the original issue discount for Black Lung Disability Trust Fund Obligations. This 

account does not close at yearend. 

Justification: Update definition to clarify its use for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 

Obligations

T/L S2 15-01 II-1 IRC Handout April 2, 2015
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 193 Filed 01/22/2004 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 193 Filed 01/22/2004 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 86-6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 86-6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 86-6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 86-6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 86-6 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 5 of 5
(Reap. Dec. 10677)

Entry No. 25671, etc.

#### Stone & Downer Co. *v.*United States

(Decided February 11, 1964)

*Henry L. Ziegel*for the plaintiff.

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

OltveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows r

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED hy and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the defendant, in the above entitled eases as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule A, which is incorporated herein, consists of wool yarns exported from England, and were appraised on the basis of United States Value as that value is defined in Section 402(a), Value (Alternative), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> That said merchandise is included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with said Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> That the value found by the appraiser was as follows:

> Pebble spun yarn $4. 224 per lb. net packed Crinkle spun yarn 4.224 per lb. net packed

> That during the year 1960 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England; that during the year 1960 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of England for export to the United States; that during the year 1960 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the United States to all purchasers.

> *447That the cost of production, as defined in Section 402(a) (f), Tariff Act of 1980, as amended, for such merchandise during 1960, and at the time said merchandise was exported from England, was as follows:

> Marked “A” on invoice

> Pebble spun yarn £0/21/3 per lb. plus packing

> Orinkle spun yarn £0/25/5 per lb. plus packing

> That these appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

. On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the pebble spun yarn and crinkle spun yarn, represented by the items marked “A” on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, is statutory cost of production and hold that such value for the said pebble spun yarn is £0.21.3 per pound, plus packing, and for the said crinkle spun yarn is £0.25.5 per pound, plus packing.

As to all merchandise, other than the pebble spun yarn and the crinkle spun yarn identified in the stipulation hereinabove set forth, included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 33-72888) pertaining to the Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. Stock OptionPlan, the Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. 2001Equity-Based Compensation Plan and theOdyssey HealthCare, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report datedFebruary 6, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofOdyssey HealthCare, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.        Dallas, Texas /s/ Ernst & Young LLPMarch 8, 2004
# C_2017309EN.01004101.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/41

---

Order of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Gauff v EUIPO — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (GAUFF)

(Case T-13/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 309/55)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

1

---
# C_2017022EN.01003701.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/37

---

Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO

(Case T-520/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Teleworking - Request for extension - Refusal - Actions - Subsequent grant of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 022/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ED (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 15 January 2014 refusing to grant the applicant’s request of 26 September 2013 to be allowed essentially to continue teleworking from Barcelona (Spain) until her health was restored and annulment of the decision of the President of EUIPO of 3 June 2014 rejecting her complaint of 7 February 2014.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.

| 2. | ED shall bear one third of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ED shall bear one third of her own costs.

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-93/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00318-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.K., A CHILD,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01216

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. Appellant’s attorney 

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there 

are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 

21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.), we held that in parentaltermination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to 

counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical 

obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all 

indigent litigants. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, appellant’s attorney has 

informed appellant of his right to file his own brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1996, no pet.). The State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief 

unless the appellant files a pro se brief.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within thirty days from the date 

of this order. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than 

twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to 

withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of 

the court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-6 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-6 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-6 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-6 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-6 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 5
# C_2017095EN.01000302.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/3

---

Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-581/15, Syndial SpA v European Commission

(Case C-410/16 P)

(2017/C 095/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Syndial SpA (represented by: L. Acquarone and S. Grassi, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 9 February 2017, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Syndial SpA — Attività Diversificate to bear its own costs.

---