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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1496 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1496

  To amend the definition of Village Corporation in the Alaska Native 
             Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2017

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the definition of Village Corporation in the Alaska Native 
             Claims Settlement Act, 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 ``ANCSA Corporation Reinstatement Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF DISSOLVED VILLAGE OR GROUP CORPORATIONS.

    Section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
1602) is amended by striking subsection (j) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(j) Village Corporation.--The term `Village Corporation'--
            ``(1) means an Alaska Native Village Corporation organized 
        under the laws of the State of Alaska as a business for profit 
        or nonprofit corporation to hold, invest, manage, or distribute 
        lands, property, funds, and other rights and assets for and on 
        behalf of a Native village in accordance with the terms of this 
        Act; and
            ``(2) shall include any successor corporation of a Village 
        Corporation involuntarily dissolved under the laws of the State 
        of Alaska if--
                    ``(A) the successor has received all or 
                substantially all of the assets of the original Village 
                Corporation;
                    ``(B) the shareholders of the successor are 
                comprised of all shareholders of record or heirs of 
                such shareholders at the time of such involuntary 
                dissolution; and
                    ``(C) the successor corporation is organized under 
                the laws of the State of Alaska;''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017283EN.01004101.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2017 — Sata v EUIPO (4600)

(Case T-214/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Sign composed exclusively of numerals - Application for an EU word mark 4600 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 1942/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign 4600 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 Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sata GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

1

---
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 2nd day of October, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached communications shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

_______________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 31 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
II 

Calendar No. 219 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1447 

[Report No. 115–155] 

To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Diesel Emissions Re5 duction Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1447 RS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUC2 TION PROGRAM. 

3 Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

4 U.S.C. 16137(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2016’’ and in5 serting ‘‘2022’’. 

6 SEC. 3. RECOGNIZING DIFFERENCES IN DIESEL VEHICLE, 

7 ENGINE, EQUIPMENT, AND FLEET USE. 

8 (a) NATIONAL GRANT, REBATE, AND LOAN PRO9 GRAMS.—Section 792(c)(4)(D) of the Energy Policy Act 

10 of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16132(c)(4)(D)) is amended by insert11 ing ‘‘, recognizing differences in typical vehicle, engine, 

12 equipment, and fleet use throughout the United States’’ 

13 before the semicolon. 

14 (b) STATE GRANT, REBATE, AND LOAN PRO15 GRAMS.—Section 793(b)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 

16 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133(b)(1)) is amended— 

17 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

18 and inserting a semicolon; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(D) the recognition, for purposes of im21 plementing this section, of differences in typical 

22 vehicle, engine, equipment, and fleet use 

23 throughout the United States, including ex24 pected useful life; and’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1447 RS

1 SEC. 4. REALLOCATION OF UNUSED STATE FUNDS. 

2 Section 793(c)(2)(C) of the Energy Policy Act of 

3 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133(c)(2)(C)) is amended beginning 

4 in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ‘‘to each re5 maining’’ and all that follows through ‘‘this paragraph’’ 

6 in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘to carry out section 792’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 219 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1447 

[Report No. 115–155] 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction 

program, and for other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                          Flagstar Capital Corporation
                      Computation of Net Earnings per Share
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

In order to calculate net earnings per share of common stock, the Company must
first subtract the dividend requirements of the Series A Preferred Shares to
arrive at net earnings available to the common stockholders. Net earnings per
share are calculated by dividing net earnings available to common stockholders
by the average number of common shares outstanding during the period.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       For the  For the    For the      For the
                                       quarter  quarter   six months  six months
                                        ended    ended       ended      ended
                                      June 30,  June 30,   June 30,    June 30,
                                        2001      2000       2001        2000
                                      --------  --------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                    <C>       <C>        <C>         <C>
Net Earnings                           $1,791    $1,757     $3,683      $3,417
Less: preferred stock dividends         1,222     1,222      2,444       2,444
                                       ------    ------     ------      ------
Net income available to common stock   $  569    $  535     $1,239      $  973
                                       ======    ======     ======      ======
Average common shares outstanding       1,000     1,000      1,000       1,000
Net earnings per share - basic         $ 0.57    $ 0.53     $ 1.24      $ 0.97
</TABLE>
Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 1 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 2 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 3 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 4 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 5 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 6 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 7 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 8 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 9 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 10 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 11 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 12 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 13 of 14

Case 2:02-cv-20131-HB     Document 9      Filed 04/18/2005     Page 14 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN WALSH and

REGINA WALSH

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4181

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04181-LDD Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2022128EN.01001401.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — QI and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T-868/16) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Bond exchange agreement for the sole benefit of the Eurosystem central banks - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Private creditors - Official sector creditors - Attributability - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 63(1) TFEU - Articles 120 to 127 and Article 352(1) TFEU - Right to property - Equal treatment)

(2022/C 128/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: QI and the 15 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) and European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendants: European Council and Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel, E. Chatziioakeimidou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the implementation of a mandatory exchange of State bonds in the context of the restructuring of Greek public debt in 2012 through the involvement of private investors by means of the application of collective action clauses, due to the conduct and actions of, in particular, the European Council, the Council, the Commission and the ECB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders QI and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders QI and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Council and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Council and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MIRIAN SCHVOM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.

2270,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ANDREW BEHREND, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ROBERT K. ALDERMAN,

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

CYNTHIA B. GOEPEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

MARNA BERKMAN,

 Plantiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4093

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4105

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4149

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4180

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4197

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

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4362

Case 2:02-cv-04386-MK Document 7 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 1 of 3
2

ANDREW SPARK,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

RICHARD KIRSCH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

H.S. SADOW, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ERIN FEGAN,

 Plainitffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SCOTT JACOBS, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SAJ DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4386

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4387

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4476

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4530

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6797

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6993

 O R D E R 

 

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'

Unopposed Motion for Entry of Proposed Case Management Order No. 1 Regarding Consolidation,

Case 2:02-cv-04386-MK Document 7 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 2 of 3
3

Initial Discovery and Stay Pending Appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

and Case Management Order No. 1 (Regarding Consolidation, Initial Discovery and Stay Pending

Appeal) is APPROVED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04386-MK Document 7 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 3 of 3
### IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT K NOXVILLE January 23, 2020 Session **IN RE ISABELLA W. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Knox County**  **No. 147106 Timothy E. Irwin, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No. E2019**  **- 01346**  **- COA** **- R3**  **- PT** 

**___________________________________** D. MICHAEL SWINEY , C.J. , with whom THOMAS R. F RIERSON , II, J., joins, concurring and dissenting. I concur with the majority ’s opinion except as to the holding that the ground as to the “failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody” was not satisfied. This Court is split on this issue, and I agree with the line of cases that hold that the parent has to be able and willing rather than just either of the two. See In re Amynn K. , No. E2017
- 01866
- COA
- R3
- PT, 2018 WL 3058280, at * 12
- 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2018). I concur in all the rest of the majority’s opinion including termination of the father’s parental rights. Given this Court’s clear and irreconcilable split as to this question of statutory interpretation, I request the Tennessee Supreme Court accept and resolve this issue once it has the opportunity to do so.

____________________________________ D. MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE
----

Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Philip Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes)

(Case T-140/06)

(2006/C 165/63)

Language in which the appeal was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by T. van Innis and C.S. Moreau, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark representing a packet of cigarettes for goods in Class 34 (application No. 2 681 351)

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant contends that the trade mark has a sufficiently distinctive character and cannot be said to be common to all the goods in question.

----
Start your transition 

TODAY! 

• Contact the Cash Analysis team 

to discuss the changes needed in 

your agency to convert from 

monthly reporting to daily 

reporting

•• Develop a Be aware that Section 2 and 3 of transition plan 

the 224 will be closed

• Work with SAM team now to get

access, set up/update defaults and

cash flow profiles

CONTACTS 

Cash Analysis Mailbox: 

CashAnalysisSection.FAO@fiscal.treasury.gov

Customer Relationship Management

TIP OF THE WEEK

TRANSITION TO BECOMING A DAILY 

TAS/BETC REPORTER

IPAC

• Request IPAC to set flag to require component TAS/BETC

• Set up SAM Cash Flow Profile

• Include TAS/BETC on Sender and Receiver transactions

• Analyze data

• Set GO LIVE date and close Section II of the CTA/224

COLLECTIONS • Set OTCnet flag (if applicable)

• Set up SAM Cash Flow Profile

• Include TAS/BETC or C-Keys on all revenue/collection source

systems 

• Analyze data sent by GWA

• Set GO LIVE date and close Section III of the CTA/224

PAYMENTS • Complete training and testing of file layouts with Payments

Management Team

• Complete SAM set up steps

• Include TAS/BETC on payment transactions

• Set GO LIVE date and close Section II of the CTA/224
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-7170 September Term, 2022

1:22-cv-03162-UNA

Filed On: June 16, 2023

Denys Namystiuk,

Appellant

v.

Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin,

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of

Russian Federation,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 17, 2022, order

be affirmed. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), “if it applies, is the ‘sole

basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court.’” Samantar v.

Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 314 (2010) (quoting Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess

Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 439 (1989)); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(a), 1604; see

also Samantar, 560 U.S. at 324–25 (recognizing that some actions against foreign

officials, which are not covered by the plain text of the FSIA, should nevertheless be

dismissed pursuant to the FSIA because they “should be treated as actions against the

foreign state itself, as the state is the real party in interest”). The district court properly

dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to allege facts

that could support the inference that any of the exceptions to sovereign immunity

enumerated in the FSIA applies. See Simon v. Republic of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127, 141

(D.C. Cir. 2016).
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-7170 September Term, 2022

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.

41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
# C_2018022EN.01003302.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2017 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO (Juwel)

(Case T-31/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark Juwel - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 022/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 (Case R 2571/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of word mark Juwel 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 adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---