alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM C. HOOD, Specialist Third Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 473, 24 CMR 283

No. 9986

Decided December 13, 1957

*474• *Colonel Edward M. O’Connell, Colonel James M. Scott, First Lieutenant Lawrence R. Fullem*and *First Lieutenant William L. Garwood*were on the brief' for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton, Major Thomas J. Nichols, First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer*and *First Lieutenant Chester F. Relyea*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was charged with six offenses. Three specifications were laid under Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934, and each alleges the theft of a letter from the mails on a different date. Each of the other three specifications charges the larceny of a postal money - order, and all were laid under Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. The addressee of the letter set out in the numbered specifications under Article 134 is named as the owner of the money order in a correspondingly numbered specification under Article 121. The accused entered a plea of guilty- to all specifications and both charges. No evidence was. presented. He was .duly convicted and sentenced by the court-martial. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, with modification of the period of confinement.

On this appeal the accused contends that he should have been sentenced on the basis of three separate offenses instead of six. He argues that in each instance only one offense was committed because the money order was included within the particular letter that he abstracted from the mail on the days specified.

By themselves, the allegations of the specification do not support the accused’s argument. Neither does the record of trial contain any evidence to support it. The correspondence of date and addressee-owner is hardly enough to show that the money orders came from the stolen letters. However, both the Article 32 investigation and the Staff Judge Advocate’s post-trial review, which was considered by the convening authority in his action, show unmistakably that in fact the money orders came from the letters. Moreover, the Government acknowledges that the issue raised by the accused is “identical” to that considered by us in United States v Dicario, 8 USCMA 353, 24 CMR 163. In the Dicario case we held that an accused cannot be punished separately for the theft of a letter from the mail and for the theft of the contents of that letter. Under the circumstances, the *Dicario*holding is controlling.

The sentence is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in United States v Dicario, 8 USCMA 353, 24 CMR 163.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT


 


Reference is made to that
certain Non-Revolving Line of Credit Loan Agreement by and between Loop Media, Inc. (“Borrower”) and Excel Family
Partners, LLLP (“Lender”) dated February 23, 2022 (as amended, restated, or otherwise modified from time to time,
the “Loan Agreement”).


 


This First Amendment to the
Loan Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into on April 13, 2022 by and between the Borrower and the Lender.
Terms used herein, but not otherwise defined herein have the meaning given to such terms in the Loan Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, Borrower desires to increase the aggregate
sum of loans and Lender is willing to increase the aggregate sum of loans under the Loan Agreement by $500,000.


 


WHEREAS, the parties are entering into this Amendment
to define the terms and conditions of the increase the Maximum Line of Credit Amount under the Loan Agreement to $2,000,000.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to
be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


		1	Maximum Line of Credit Amount. The defined term “Maximum Line of Credit Amount” in Section 1.1 of the Loan
Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following definition:



 


Maximum Line of Credit
Amount - The sum of Two Million and 00/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00).


 


		2	Additional Note. Section 2.1 c. of the Loan Agreement shall be amended and restated as reflected in the following paragraph,
marked to show changes:



 


c. At Closing, Borrower shall execute and deliver the Note
to Lender for the Maximum Line of Credit Amount; provided, however, if the Maximum Line of Credit Note amount is increased subsequent
to the Closing an additional Note shall be issued for the amount of such increase and such additional Note and the original Note shall
together be referred to herein as the “Note”. The Note shall evidence Borrower's unconditional obligation to repay
Lender for all Advances made under the Line of Credit, with interest as herein provided. Each Advance under the Line of Credit shall be
deemed evidenced by the Note, which is deemed incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof. The Note shall be in form and substance
satisfactory to Lender.


 


		3	Amended Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement is hereby amended as set forth in this Amendment.



 


[SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON SEPARATE PAGE]


 






     


     


    

 


WITNESS the due execution
of this Agreement as a document under seal as of the date first written above.


 


	BORROWER:	 
	 	 
	LOOP MEDIA, INC.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name: Neil T. Watanabe	 
	Title: Chief Financial Officer	 
	 	 
	 	 
	LENDER:	 
	 	 
	EXCEL FAMILY PARTNERS, LLLP	 
	By: Fortress Holdings, LLC, its General Partner	 
	 	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name: Bruce A. Cassidy Sr.	 
	Title: Manager	 



 


 


	Date:	 	 



 


(Signature Page to Amendment to Loan Agreement)
No. 53161.

#### Joseph Horne Company *v.*United States,

protests 47360-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[J-54-2022]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: SENIOR HEALTH INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA (IN 

REHABILITATION)

APPEAL OF: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF 

INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF MAINE, 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE 

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

MASSACHUSETTS AND THE 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 71 MAP 2021

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 1 SHP 

2020 dated August 24, 2021

ARGUED: September 15, 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: June 20, 2023

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2023, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.

Opinions to follow.

The Late Chief Justice Baer did not participate in the decision of this matter.
# C_2017144EN.01003701.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2017 — Windrush Aka v EUIPO — Dammers (The Specials)

(Case T-336/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark The Specials - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 144/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and S. Britton, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fehler, Solicitor, H. Cuddigan and B. Brandreth, Barristers).

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2015 (Case R 1412/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Windrush Aka and Mr Dammers.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Windrush Aka LLP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Windrush Aka LLP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24283-24284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8334]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-51-000]


Texxon Utilities, Ltd. Co.; WCW International, Inc.; Notice of 
Institution of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

April 25, 2007.
    On April 25, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a 
proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of 
the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, concerning the justness 
and

[[Page 24284]]

reasonableness of the market-based rates of Texxon Utilities, Ltd. Co. 
and WCW International, Inc.
    The refund effective date in the above-docketed proceedings, 
established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8334 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**
United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary CompaniesComputation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  Three Months Ended March 31    20012000 (In Millions)Earnings:     Earnings (loss) before income taxes$ (522)$ 204 Fixed charges, from below235 251 Undistributed (earnings) losses of affiliates(1)3 Interest capitalized(22)(20)   Earnings (loss)$ (310)$ 438   Fixed charges:     Interest expense$ 132 $ 101 Portion of rental expense representative  of the interest factor103150   Fixed charges$ 235 $ 251   Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(a)1.74      
___________
(a) Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $545 millionin 2001.   
</HTML></TEXT></DOCUMENT></SUBMISSION>

**
Author: SAIC and TetraTech

Date Created: Received from SAIC on 8/16/10

Date Modified: 3/31/2011

Purpose: File contains CT cost formulas for STQ facilities.

File Contents:

Worksheet Contents

CCRS Avg & Plume Abate Cost

Notes

Input Files:

External data used in calculations/analysis:

None

FileInfo 1 of 3
Created by SAIC

Costs are based on "Average Difficulty" closed cycle cooling retrofit adjusted to include plume abatement costs for 25% of facilities

Plume abatement adjustment is applied as an average increase for all plants rather than being asigned to specific facilities.

These cost factors correspond with Power Plant Compliance Costs dated 8-6-2010

Notes 2 of 3
Formulas for Estimating IPM Model Facility Costs With Plume Abatement for 25%

Cost Basis is Design Intake Flow (DIF)

Average Difficulty with 25% Plume Abatement

Costs and Generating Output Reduction Equation

Constant

(2009) Units

Capital Cost (CC) CC = DIF(gpm) x Constant $293 Dollars

Fixed O&M Cost (OMF) OMF = DIF(gpm) x Constant $1.52 Dollars

Variable O&M - Chemicals (OMC) OMC= DIF(gpm) x Constant $1.25 Dollars

Variable O&M - Pump & Fan Power (OMV) OMV= DIF(gpm) x Constant 0.0000245 MW

Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Non-nuclear EP=MWS x Constant 0.015 MW

Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Nuclear EP=MWS x Constant 0.025 MW

MWS = Total facility steam generating capacity

Assume EPRI Costs are in 2007 Dollars - Costs adjusted to 2009 Dollars using ENR February 2009 CCI (8532.75)

Estimation of DIF Where No DIF Data Exists

Equation Constant Units

Design Intake Flow (DIF) DIF = MWS x Constant 707 gpm

Net Construction Downtime

Fuel Type Net Downtime (Weeks)

Nuclear 28

Non-nuclear 4

Technology Service life

Facility Type Years

All Facilities 30

CCRS Avg & Plume Abate Cost 3 of 3
No. 54260.

#### Samuel Freedman Co. and Paramount Distillers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 118679-K and 118666-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016136EN.01000401.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/4

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 — Emsibeth SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-251/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the figurative mark Nael - Opposition by the proprietor of prior Community word mark Mc Neal - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Determination of the relevant public - Assessment of the comparison of the goods, the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion))

(2016/C 136/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Emsibeth SpA (represented by: A. Arpaia, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Emsibeth SpA shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Emsibeth SpA shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring and Data: Regional Climate Map...

www.nws.noaa.gov

CPC Search

CPC search

About Us

Our Mission

Who We Are

Contact Us

CPC Information

CPC Web Team

HOME > Monitoring & Data > U.S. Climate Data > Precipitation & Temperature > Lower

48 States Climate Maps > Climate Regions Map

THE NINE REGIONS AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC

DATA CENTER (NCDC) AND REGULARLY USED IN CLIMATE SUMMARIES

CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER, NOAA

NOAA/ National Weather Service

National Centers for Environmental Prediction

Climate Prediction Center

5200 Auth Road

Camp Springs, Maryland 20746

Climate Prediction Center Web Team

Page last modified: November 2, 2004

I

Disclaimer Privacy Policy

1 of 1 6/8/2005 2:25 PM

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 86

Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring and Data: Regional Climate Map ... 

1 of 1 

CPC Search 

IcPC search 

About Us 

Our Mission 

Who We Are 

Contact Us 

CPC Information 

CPC Web Team 

www.nws.noaa.gov 

HOME> Monitoring & Data> U.S. Climate Data> Precipitation & Temperature> Lower 

48 States Climate Maps> Climate Regions Map 

THE NINE REGIONS AS DEfiNED BY THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC 

DATA CENTER (NCDC) AND REGULARLY USED IN CLIMATE SUMMARIES 

CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER, NOAA 

NOAN National Weather Service 

National Centers for Environmental Prediction 

Climate Prediction Center 

5200 Auth Road 

Camp Springs, Maryland 20746 

Climate Prediction Center Web Team 

Page last modified: November 2, 2004 

Disclaimer Privacy Policy 

6/8/2005 2:25 PM
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WINDELL R. TRIPP, Corporal, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 509, 42 CMR 111

No. 22,942

June 26, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Benjamin G. Porter*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

Use of a sentence work sheet and a voting procedure form in place of oral instructions requires reversal of the sentence in this case. United States v Pryor, 19 USCMA 279, 41 CMR 279 (1970).

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence is set aside and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing on the sentence may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 186 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 186

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas 2007 is the 75th year that Brookgreen Gardens is open to the public;
Whereas in 1930 philanthropist Archer M. Huntington and his wife, sculptor Anna 
        Hyatt Huntington, purchased 9,100 acres of South Carolina land that 
        stretched from the Waccamaw River to the Atlantic Ocean;
Whereas within the tract of such land were the remnants of four rice 
        plantations, including the Oaks, Springfield, Laurel Hill, and 
        Brookgreen;
Whereas the Huntingtons created Brookgreen Gardens on a 300-acre parcel of land 
        with massive live oak trees which were planted nearly two centuries 
        earlier;
Whereas in 1932 the Huntingtons opened Brookgreen Gardens to the public and 
        established it as both a nature preserve and a showcase for American 
        figurative sculpture;
Whereas Brookgreen Gardens consists of two main components: the Huntington 
        Sculpture Garden and the Lowcountry History and Wildlife Preserve;
Whereas more than 550 works by hundreds of American artists are displayed in the 
        Huntington Sculpture Garden;
Whereas the Lowcountry History and Wildlife Preserve is rich with evidence of 
        the great rice plantations of the 1800s, contains native and domestic 
        animal exhibits, and is the only zoo accredited by the Association of 
        Zoos and Aquariums on the coast of either North Carolina or South 
        Carolina; and
Whereas Brookgreen Gardens is designated a National Historic Landmark by the 
        National Park Service: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress honors Brookgreen Gardens in Murrells Inlet, South 
Carolina, on its 75th anniversary of being open to the public.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 186

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the 75th anniversary of Brookgreen Gardens in Murrells Inlet, 
                            South Carolina.
```
#### August F. Stauff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6407.

Entry No. 746266, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 11, 1942, etc.

Certified March 11, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 8, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 3, 1946)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law *351of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present cases, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values are the appraised values of the articles in question, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
# C_2015320EN.01002101.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Nils-Johannes Kratzer v R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-423/15)

(2015/C 320/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nils-Johannes Kratzer

Applicant:

Defendant: R+V Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2), does a person who, as is clear from his application, is seeking not recruitment and employment but merely the status of applicant in order to bring claims for compensation also qualify as seeking ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2), does a person who, as is clear from his application, is seeking not recruitment and employment but merely the status of applicant in order to bring claims for compensation also qualify as seeking ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Can a situation in which the status of applicant was obtained not with a view to recruitment and employment but for the purpose of claiming compensation be considered as an abuse of rights under EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

2

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 626 

Relating to the retirement of Linda E. Sebold. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Relating to the retirement of Linda E. Sebold. 

Whereas Linda E. Sebold has faithfully served the United 

States Senate for more than 33 years; 

Whereas Linda began her service to the Senate as an assistant in the Disbursing Office in 1973; 

Whereas Linda became the Committee Scheduling Coordinator for the Daily Digest in 1978 and was promoted to 

Editor of the Daily Digest in 1999; 

Whereas Linda has been a leader in implementing technological advances in the preparation of the Daily Digest; 

Whereas Linda has made a significant contribution to continuity of government planning; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

SRES 626 ATS 

Whereas, during her 331⁄2 year tenure, she has at all times 

discharged the difficult duties and responsibilities of her 

office with extraordinary efficiency, aplomb, and devotion; 

Whereas Linda’s service to the Senate has been marked by 

her personal commitment to the highest standards of excellence; and 

Whereas Linda is retiring after more than 33 years service 

to the United States Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Linda E. Sebold be and hereby is com2 mended for her outstanding service to her country and to 

3 the United States Senate. 

4 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit 

5 a copy of this resolution to Linda E. Sebold. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS