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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month of 

November as ‘‘National Military Family Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005

Mr. INOUYE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation 

of the month of November as ‘‘National Military Family 

Month’’.

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their 

dedication to our Nation and its values, represent the 

bedrock upon which our Nation was founded and upon 

which our Nation continues to rely in these perilous and 

challenging times: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate—

2 (1) that the month of November should be des3 ignated as ‘‘National Military Family Month’’; and 

4 (2) to request that the President—
2

•SRES 9 IS 

1 (A) designate the month of November as 

2 ‘‘National Military Family Month’’; and 

3 (B) issue a proclamation calling upon the 

4 people of the United States to observe the 

5 month with appropriate ceremonies and activi6 ties.

Æ
2 

•SRES 9 IS 

1 (A) designate the month of November as 

2 ‘‘National Military Family Month’’; and 

3 (B) issue a proclamation calling upon the 

4 people of the United States to observe the 

5 month with appropriate ceremonies and activi6 ties. 

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Nine
                                            Months
                                             Ended             Year Ended September 30,
                                            June 30,    -------------------------------------
                                              1999        1998      1997      1996      1995
                                            --------    -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                         <C>         <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                $66,425     $57,007   $63,275   $61,717   $39,759
Interest expense                             13,000      17,383    16,696    15,921    16,632
Amortization of debt discount and expense       141         200       176       173       206
Interest component of rental expense          1,268       1,624     1,887     1,838     1,604
                                            -------     -------   -------   -------   -------
                                            $80,834     $76,214   $82,034   $79,649   $58,201
                                            =======     =======   =======   =======   =======

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                            $13,000     $17,383   $16,696   $15,921   $16,632
Amortization of debt discount and expense       141         200       176       173       206
Allowance for funds used during
      construction (capitalized interest)        27          39       114       107        65
Interest component of rental expense          1,268       1,624     1,887     1,838     1,604
                                            -------     -------   -------   -------   -------
                                            $14,436     $19,246   $18,873   $18,039   $18,507
                                            =======     =======   =======   =======   =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges             5.60        3.96      4.35      4.42      3.14
                                            =======     =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
Case Wo. 9,915.

#### MULLER v. ERICH.

[See Case No. 9,916.]
Docket Number: EP A-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329



## REGULATORY SUPPORT:

Assessment of Potential Costs, Ben efits, Environmental Justice, and
Other Impacts; and Regulatory Fl exibility Screening Assessment

Proposed Amendments to th e Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste – Final Rule (76 FR 15456, et seq), March 21, 2011.

================================ ============================

EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR Part 241, which was codified by the NonHazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) final rule (76 FR 15456, et seq), originally
promulgated on March 21, 2011. The necessary regulatory support documents for this action

that address all relevant statutes and Executive Or ders are located in the following EPA Dockets:

i) Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinera tors (CISWI), identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119, ii) Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: (1) Major source rule, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058 (2) Area source rule, identified by Do cket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790

Executive Order 12866 Requirements

Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits, Environmental Justice, and Other Impacts

The proposed amendments to the March 21, 201 1 NHSM final rule are intended to clarify several provisions in 40 CFR Part 241, which provides the standards and procedures for identifying whether non-hazardous secondary mate rials (NHSM) are solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units. As such, this action alone will not result in any costs, benefits, environmental justice, or ot her impact to the regulated community 1 or the government. The proposed rule itself does not include any emi ssion standards and does not require changes in the management or use of secondary materials. Only with the promulgation of the final CISWI and major source boiler rules would society realize any costs, benefits, environmental justice, or other impacts.

1 Aside from negligible administrative costs (e .g., reading the RCRA pa rt of the proposal).Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Assessment

The proposed NHSM amendments will not impose requirements 2 on any entities apart from those that became effective in conjuncti on with the promulgation of the March 2011 final

CISWI and boiler rules. No small entities are directly regulated by the proposed NHSM amendments. As such, any potential impacts to sm all entities in affected sectors are addressed in the regulatory flexibility analyses prepared in support of the final CISWI and boiler rules, as referenced under point ii above.

Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Request

This action is believed to result in no ch anges to the information collection requirements of the NHSM final rule, and will have no impact on the information collection estimate of project cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB.

2 Aside from negligible administrative costs (e .g., reading the RCRA pa rt of the proposal).
#### Smith *versus*Smith.

On motion to reject an award of referees, the 'affidavit of the party is not evidence, that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the submission.

It is not essential to the validity of an award, that it should contain a statement of the referees’ fees.

Award of referees. Defendant moved to set it aside, because: —

1. He entered into the submission, induced only by the deceptive contrivance of the plaintiff and his counsel.

2. One of the referees had prejudged the case, and previously expressed his opinion.

3. The referees did not agree upon the award.

4. They did not report the amount of their fees.

In support of the first ground of objection, the defendant *24offered his own affidavit, which the court, Rice, J., rejected.

As to the second, there was some testimony. But the Judge did not consider that it proved the- allegation made by the defendant.

Relative to the third, one of the referees testified that he did not agree to the award, but signed it, because told by the other referees, he would not otherwise be entitled to fees, and that his signature would not add to the validity of the award.

The award did not state the amount of the referees’ fees. But they were inserted in an unauthenticated paper, made up by plaintiff’s attorney, which was returned to the court in the same envelope with the award.

The award was accepted. The defendant excepted.

Hutchinson, for the defendant.

That the referees did not agree upon the award, is proved by the testimony of one of their number, disclosing the management, corruption and ignorance of the others, and that is good cause for setting aside the award.

The court has power to reduce the compensation of referees. R. S. chap. 138, sect. 11.

The amount of their claim should therefore be stated in their award. Proof *aliunde*is inadmissible.

*Abbott,*(to whose care the suit in this court was transferred,) for plaintiff.

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The defendant’s affidavit was inadmissible. The prejudication by one of the referees was not proved. It is to be considered that two only of the referees concurred in the award. But that circumstance alone does not invalidate it. The insertion of their fees in the award was mere matter in the discretion of the referees. They were not called upon to do it. No one appears to have been in*-*.¡red by the omission. It might perhaps be ground for re-commitment. But that is not asked.

*Exceptions overruled.*
No. 49385.

#### Protests 955570-G, etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consisted of hats known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, and similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith those imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of said trade agreement (T. D. 48075) wore held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and-said trade agreement.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HOWARD W. THOMAS, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

12 USCMA 550, 31 CMR 136

*551No. 15,172

November 24, 1961

*Captain Vernon C. Maulson*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Ralph W. Wofford.*

*First Lieutenant Carl F. Wrench*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Harvey L. Zuckman. Major Francis M. Cooper*and *First*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty to two offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.1 He now attacks his conviction on two grounds. First, he challenges certain in-struetions by the law officer in which the attention of the court-martial was called to “instructions in the case of United States versus Hott.” We considered the same issue in United States v Forwerck, 12 USCMA 540, 31 CMR 126. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we hold the instruction is erroneous, but did not prejudice the accused in either the findings of guilty or the sentence.

In his second assignment of error the accused maintains that his plea of guilty was improvident as to one of the two charges. The specification of that charge alleges the accused accepted $1,000.00 in violation of paragraph 66, AR 600-101, which prohibits the acceptance of “Financial benefit or other valuable consideration” from representatives of commercial life insurance companies soliciting insurance from military personnel. He contends the specification does not state an offense because the regulation merely promulgates a policy for military commanders, and does not control the conduct of individual personnel. See United States v Farley, 11 USCMA 730, 29 CMR 546. The circumstances of the case make it unnecessary to consider the contention. Before the court imposed sentence, it was specifically instructed by the law officer that the two charges were “mul-tiplicious for punishment purposes.”2 The board of review below agreed with that ruling. Consequently, we can properly dismiss Charge I, without consideration of the operative scope of the regulation. United States v Drexler, 9 USCMA 405, 26 CMR 185. And, as the accused was sentenced solely on the basis of one charge, the validity of which is unchallenged, there is no possibility of prejudice as to the sentence. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of guilty of Charge I and dismiss that Charge and its specification. In all other respects, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge Kilday concurs.

1

 Charge I alleges a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892, and Charge II sets out a violation of Article 134 of the Code, 10 USC § 934.

2

 The law officer mistakenly understated the period of confinement by one year when he apparently used the penalty for the lesser of the two offenses for the maximum punishment. See United States v Williams, 9 USCMA 55, 25 CMR 317.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Forwerck, 12 USCMA 540, 31 CMR 126, this day decided.
Exhibit 32

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

Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (the company)
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of
the company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the company.



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                               
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Fernando Aguirre          
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Name: Fernando Aguirre        
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                               
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael B. Sims           
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Name: Michael B. Sims         
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**The undersigned officers of **United Components, Inc.**hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United Components, Inc. for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United Components, Inc.Date: November 14, 2006         By:                            /s/ BRUCE M. ZORICH   Name:  Bruce M. Zorich   Title:  Chief Executive Officer   Date: November 14, 2006         By:                            /s/ CHARLES T. DICKSON   Name:  Charles T. Dickson   Title:  Chief Financial Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
In th e S up re m e Co urt o f Ge o rg ia
De c id e d: Ap ril 2 2 , 2 0 14
S 1 4 A0 2 1 7 . ALLEN v . CLARKE. P ER CURIAM. Th e ju d g m e nt o f th e c o urt be lo w is a ffirm e d with o ut op in io n p ursu an t to S up re m e Co urt Ru le 5 9
. Affirm e d with o u t o p in io n . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.
No. 62073.

#### Joseph Ebrahimoff et al. *v.*United States,

protests 124538-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins and sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2016016EN.01002001.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2015 — Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-555/15)

(2016/C 016/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bernard Jean Marie Gabarel

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| A. | For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, should non-conventional therapies, in particular osteopathy, be regarded as paramedical activities? |
| --- | --- |

A.

For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006, should non-conventional therapies, in particular osteopathy, be regarded as paramedical activities?

1

| B. | Must a taxable person who is authorised under national law to practise a paramedical activity, namely physiotherapy, but who in the context of his professional health activity uses either indistinctly or complementarily both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy be regarded, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and, consequently, for the purposes of Article 9 of the CIVA [(Code on VAT)], as a professional who, overall, carries out a paramedical activity which is, accordingly, exempt from VAT? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Must a taxable person who is authorised under national law to practise a paramedical activity, namely physiotherapy, but who in the context of his professional health activity uses either indistinctly or complementarily both therapies characteristic of physiotherapy and therapies characteristic of osteopathy be regarded, for the purposes of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and, consequently, for the purposes of Article 9 of the CIVA [(Code on VAT)], as a professional who, overall, carries out a paramedical activity which is, accordingly, exempt from VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–574 

RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 

5724) TO IMPLEMENT THE UNITED STATES-COLOMBIA 

TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT 

APRIL 9, 2008.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1092] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1092, by a record vote of 9 to 3, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution relates to the consideration of H.R. 5724, to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The 

resolution provides that section 151(e)(1) and section 151(f)(1) of 

the Trade Act of 1974 shall not apply in the case of H.R. 5724. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 466 

Date: April 9, 2008. 

Measure: H. Res. 1092, Relating to the consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5724) to implement the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

Summary of motion: To report the rule. 

Results: Adopted 9–3. 

Vote by Member: McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)—Yea; Matsui— 

Yea; Cardoza—Yea; Welch—Yea; Castor—Yea; Arcuri—Yea; SutVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:23 Apr 09, 2008 Jkt 069008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR574.XXX HR574

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
2 

ton—Yea; Dreier—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Sessions—Nay; 

Slaughter—Yea. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 543/2006

of 31 March 2006         

fixing the minimum selling price for skimmed-milk powder for the 37th individual invitation to tender issued under the standing invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 214/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10(c) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 37th individual invitation to tender pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 214/2001, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 28 March 2006, the minimum selling price for skimmed milk is fixed at 120,00 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

(2)OJ L 37, 7.2.2001, p. 100. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1195/2005 (OJ L 194, 26.7.2005, p. 8).

----
No. 49844.

#### Protest 109354-K of National Sawdust Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the papers disclosed no reason for disturbing thp decision of the collector, which was held presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.