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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1234 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1234

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to provide for 
    expedited project implementation relating to the comprehensive 
                      Everglades restoration plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2017

  Mr. Nelson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to provide for 
    expedited project implementation relating to the comprehensive 
                      Everglades restoration plan.

    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 ``Everglades for the Next Generation 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

    Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-541; 114 Stat. 2684) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and subject to 
        paragraph (3)'' after ``subsection (b) or (c)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Expedited project implementation.--After completing a 
        project implementation report prepared in accordance with 
        subsections (f) and (h), the Secretary may carry out, without 
        any further congressional authorization--
                    ``(A) any project identified in the Plan for which 
                a project implementation report is completed that is in 
                accordance with an integrated delivery schedule 
                approved by the Chief of Engineers and the South 
                Florida Water Management District, in consultation with 
                the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, 
                subject to the condition that the report is completed 
                not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of 
                this paragraph; and
                    ``(B) any group of projects under the Plan that the 
                Secretary determines will provide regional or watershed 
                ecosystem or water supply benefits if the group of 
                projects is constructed in accordance with a project 
                implementation report approved by the Chief of 
                Engineers and the South Florida Water Management 
                District, in consultation with the South Florida 
                Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, not later than 5 
                years after the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
Privacy Act – A Privacy Act Statement required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) stating our authority for 

soliciting and collecting the information from your check, and explaining the purposes and routine 

uses which will be made of your check information, is available from the Federal Register at: 

(https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2003/02/04/03-2521/privacy-act-of-1974-as-amendedsystem-of-records), or by calling toll free at (1-866-945-7920) to obtain a copy by mail. Furnishing 

the check information is voluntary, but a decision not to do so may require you to make payment 

by some other method.

Notice to Customers Presenting Checks

When you provide a check as payment, you authorize us either to use information from your 

check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer from your account or to process the payment 

as a check transaction. For inquiries, please call (insert agency phone number).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

v. : CRIM. NO. 05-167-3

:

MARTIN KUPER :

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2009, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. No. 99) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s Paul S. Diamond

_________________________

Paul S. Diamond, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00167-PD Document 110 Filed 04/27/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL I. SCHWARTZ : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

MARTIN D. LINGLE, ET AL. : NO. 02-CV-04443

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of October, 2002, it is ORDERED that the

management track of this case shall be changed from "STANDARD"to "ARBITRATION." The

Clerk shall modify the docket accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to schedule this case for

an arbitration hearing for Wednesday, December 18, 2002.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04443-BMS Document 7 Filed 10/07/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION

KATHERINE LIGHT

:

 v.

:

No. 02-4357

:

HOTLINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, 

ET AL.

:

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION HEARING

Please take note that the above-captioned civil action case has been rescheduled for

ARBITRATION at 9:30 am on **Thursday, April 10, 2003. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS

ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE ROBERT N.C. NIX BUILDING, 900

MARKET ST., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107. REPORT TO ROOM 339 FOR YOUR ROOM

ASSIGNMENT. NOTE: Arbitrators shall not participate in settlement discussions.

Michael E. Kunz

Clerk of Court

**Case continued from March 13, 2003.

By: 

Stephen Sonnie

Deputy Clerk

Phone:267-299-7074

Date:March 25, 2003

Copies: Harry Grace, Courtroom Deputy to Judge Savage

Docket Clerk - Case File

Counsel: Peter N. Munsing, Esq.

Alan S. Battisti, Esq.

Autherine Smith, Esq., Arbitrator

Peter Levin, Esq., Arbitrator

Clayton Thomas, Esq., Arbitrator

ARB2.FRM

Case 2:02-cv-04357-TJS Document 26 Filed 03/25/2003 Page 1 of 1
**Reappropriations - Budgetary Resources Transferred Out Due to a Reappropriation**

**Effective Fiscal 2010**

**Reappropriations - Budgetary Resources Transferred Out Due to a Reappropriation**

**EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2010**

**PREPARED BY:**

**UNITED STATES STANDARD GENERAL LEDGER ADVISORY DIVISION**

**GOVERNMENTWIDE ACCOUNTING**

**BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE**

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY**

**Background**

In Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-11, a reappropriation is defined as an extension of the availability of unobligated balances of budget authority that have *expired*  or would otherwise expire as a result of legislation enacted subsequent to the law that provided the budget authority.  The term does not apply to extensions of the availability of unobligated balances that result from standing provisions of law, enacted before the budget authority was provided, or from provisions of law included in the same law that appropriated the funds.

Reappropriations of expired balances that are newly available for obligation in the current or budget year will be recorded as new budget authority (reappropriations) in the year they are newly available.

Reappropriations of unexpired balances or reappropriations of expired balances that cannot take effect until a fiscal year beyond the budget year will be reported as balance transfers in the year they are newly available for obligation.

Agencies initiate a nonexpenditure transfer in the on-line Governmentwide Accounting (GWA) System NET Application, in addition to indicating the specific transfer type (that is, Reappropriation), they  are also required to select the appropriate budgetary USSGL account applicable to each transaction.This activity is accomplished via SF 1151: Nonexpenditure Transfer Authorization. Refer to OMB Circular A-11, Appendix F pages 49-64 for further guidance on reappropriations.

**Listing of USSGL Accounts Used in This Scenario**

*For Account Definitions please refer to the TFM Section II.****

**USSGL Scenario**

**Assumptions**

1. Activity in this scenario occurs between expired TAFS A and unexpired TAFS B.

2. The BEA Category for TAFS A and TAFS B is discretionary.

3. Both TAFSs are annual year.

**Illustrative Transactions**

# Closing Entries

Note: The USSGL 2108 report will no longer be in GTAS for FY 2015 reporting.

� OMB Circular No. A-11 ( 2014), Sections 20 and 120.66

� OMB Circular No. A-11 (2014), Section 20

� OMB Circular No. A-11 (2014), Section 20

3Note:  USSGL TFM S2-14-01  Part 1  has two separate crosswalks for simplicity; we combined the SF 133 and P&F.

PAGE  

2 of 15

**Revised from June 3, 2010**

**September 9, 2014**
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-128256), Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-122701) and Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-75346) of The
Phoenix Companies, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|Hartford, Connecticut         
|February 25, 2008
<PAGE>

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                      INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: February 13, 2009              By:  /s/ Kenneth K. Westbrook
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Kenneth K. Westbrook
                                           Chief Executive Officer
April 26, 1965

Reap. Dec. 10964.

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTIONS GRANTED

Motion 'by plaintiff.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, 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 31, 2006                      April 1, 2005
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $  7,340           $  8,600      $    7,340          $   8,577
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                     7,120              7,340           7,120              7,340
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $  7,120           $  7,340           7,120           $  7,340
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

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


</TABLE>
# C_2017369EN.01001502.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2017 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freunde)

(Case T-450/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Beste Freunde - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 369/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 93/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Beste Freunde as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders sheepworld AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00298-CV

Car Traders, Inc. and Carmelo Luis Velez, Appellants

v.

Roy James, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2000V-139, HONORABLE DANIEL R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellants Car Traders, Inc. and Carmelo Luis Velez have informed this Court that they no longer 

wish to pursue their appeal and understand that it will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, 

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution on our own motion.

 

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 31, 2002

Do Not Publish
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |
|----------------------------------|
| Fact Sheet 015–97          |

|                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / FAQ |
|                                                                                                                                     |

Mind-Land Reclamation in the Thar Desert, India-INDO--U.S. Technology Exhange

The Challenge

The reclamation (rehabilitation) of wastelands is expensive,            labor intensive, and slow to demonstrate results. If carefully            planned, however, the coordination of scientific research, industry            needs, and community land-use requirements will result in landscape            reclamation that is productive and sustainable. The human population            in India will reach 1 billion by the year 2000. Estimates suggest            that in order to adequately feed this many people, the agricultural            output of 0.86 tonne/ha will have to double. In the Thar Desert            region of Rajasthan State, mining is second in economic importance            only to agriculture. Throughout India, industrial and mining            activities, coupled with poorly managed agricultural and irrigation            practices, have caused the degradation of an estimated 80 million            hectares. New Federal mined land reclamation regulations have            increased industrial stewardship awareness and interest in landscape            rehabilitation but the scientific basis for understanding how            sustainable reclamation systems are achieved, especially in the            desert regions, is just beginning to be developed.

In 1987 the U.S. Department            of Argiculture asked the USGS to participate in developing several            cooperative projects that focused on dryland agriculture. This            Indo-U.S. funded activity recognized the importance of two-way            information transfer between the countries; in particular, the            USGS was interested in learning about Indian agrogeology, mined            land reclamation in desert regions, and land-use management practices.            Three years of planning resulted in 26 projects, one of which            was a cooperative land reclamation study between scientists at            the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI) in Jodhpur,            and the USGS.

**FIGURE:**Gypsum mine, western Rajasthan.            Hand of worker covers shallow (20 cm) overburden.
[Cite as State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 122 Ohio St.3d 32, 2009-Ohio-2360.] 

THE STATE EX REL. GILBERT ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF 

CINCINNATI ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 

 122 Ohio St.3d 32, 2009-Ohio-2360.] 

Appeal dismissed as moot. 

(No. 2008-0029 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided May 27, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-070166, 174 

Ohio App.3d 89, 2007-Ohio-6332. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause is before the court upon appellants’ appeal from a 

judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus. 

{¶ 2} On June 12, 2008, we granted appellants’ motion for a partial 

remand to allow the court of appeals to rule on the motion for relief from 

judgment that appellants had filed in that court. The court of appeals 

subsequently granted the motion for relief from judgment and, on March 13, 

2009, granted the writ of mandamus sought by appellants. State ex rel. Gilbert v. 

Cincinnati, Hamilton App. No. C-070166, 2009-Ohio-1078. 

{¶ 3} Accordingly, this cause is dismissed as moot. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Manley Burke, L.P.A., Matthew W. Fellerhoff, and Daniel J. McCarthy, 

for appellants. 

__________________
# C_2017382EN.01004201.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Joined Case T-495/16 RENV I and T-496/16 RENV II) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Appointment - Position of executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Selection and appointment procedure - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Impartiality - Assessment criteria - Appointment of another candidate - Res judicata))

(2017/C 382/50)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: in Case T-495/16 RENV I, M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska and, in Case T-496 RENV II, initially M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, then M. Ekimdzhiev and K. Boncheva, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: G. Berscheid and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU and seeking, in particular, annulment of the Commission decision of 20 April 2011 by which it proposed to the EMA’s Management Board a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments and of the decision of the EMA’s Management Board of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA and seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Emil Hristov to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-2/12, T-26/15 P, T-27/15 P, T-495/16 RENV I and T-495/16 RENV II. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Emil Hristov to pay the costs incurred in Cases F-2/12, T-26/15 P, T-27/15 P, T-495/16 RENV I and T-495/16 RENV II.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-2/12).

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04332-RK Document 22-2 Filed 01/13/2004 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04332-RK Document 22-2 Filed 01/13/2004 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7150

CALVIN PRESSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER FLOYD, 7/3 Shift; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 2811-L) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Pressley, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Pressley appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pressley v. Floyd , No. CA-00-2811-L (D. Md. May 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 57960.

protests 217580-K, etc. (New York).

#### Orbis Products Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.