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

House Calendar No. 55 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 123 

[Report No. 110–134] 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 

Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2007 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HOYER, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. TOM

DAVIS of Virginia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MAY 8, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District 

of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 123 RH 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL 

2 GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW 

3 ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN. 

4 On June 8, 2007, or on such other date as the Speak5 er of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

6 Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly des7 ignate, the 2007 District of Columbia Special Olympics 

8 Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred 

9 to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through the Capitol 

10 Grounds as part of the journey of the Special Olympics 

11 torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics sum12 mer games. 

13 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD. 

14 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as 

15 may be necessary to carry out the event. 

16 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA17 TIONS. 

18 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions 

19 for physical preparations for the event. 

20 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

21 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce22 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

23 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise24 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

25 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

26 Grounds, in connection with the event. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 55 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 123 

[Report No. 110

–134] 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

forcement Torch Run. District of Columbia Special Olympics Law EnMAY 8, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# C_2015320EN.01002301.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 5 August 2015 — Evelyn Danqua v The Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General

(Case C-429/15)

(2015/C 320/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evelyn Danqua

Applicant:

Defendant: The Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendant:

Other party: The Refugee Legal Services

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an application for asylum, which is governed by domestic legislation which reflects a Member State's obligations under the Qualification Directive, be regarded as an appropriate comparator in respect of an application for subsidiary protection for the purposes of the principle of equivalence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an application for asylum, which is governed by domestic legislation which reflects a Member State's obligations under the Qualification Directive, be regarded as an appropriate comparator in respect of an application for subsidiary protection for the purposes of the principle of equivalence?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it relevant for this purpose that the time limit imposed in respect of applications for subsidiary protection serves the important interest of ensuring that applications for international protection are dealt within a reasonable time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it relevant for this purpose that the time limit imposed in respect of applications for subsidiary protection serves the important interest of ensuring that applications for international protection are dealt within a reasonable time?

---
Exhibit 4.7

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                            TO THE BE AEROSPACE, INC.
                       1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN, AS AMENDED
                      (As amended through August 15, 1997)

                  WHEREAS, BE Aerospace, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the
"Company") maintains the 1996 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") in order to enhance
the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries to (i) to attract and retain
directors, employees, consultants or advisors, (ii) to reward such individuals
for their contributions to the success of the Company and (iii) to encourage
such individuals to take into account the long-term interests of the Company and
its subsidiaries thorough ownership of shares in the Company's common stock, par
value $.01 per share (the "Common Stock");

                  WHEREAS, the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the
Company (the "Board") may amend the Plan at any time to increase the maximum
number of shares available under the Plan;

                  WHEREAS, the Board has authorized an increase in the number of
shares of Common Stock available under the Plan by 500,000 to 3,150,000;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of January 19, 2000, the Company
amends the Plan as follows:

                  1. Section 5(a) shall be amended by deleting "2,650,000 " from
the third line and replacing it with "3,150,000".

                  2. Except as set forth herein, the Plan is hereby ratified and
confirmed in all respects.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment effective as of January 19, 2000.


                                   BE AEROSPACE, INC.

                                   By:/s/   Jeffrey P. Holtzman
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Name: Jeffrey P. Holtzman
                                      Date: Vice President, Treasurer and
                                            Assistant Secretary
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 142 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas this year marks the 26th anniversary of ‘‘National 

Pet Week’’, sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Auxiliary to the American Veterinary Medical Association; 

Whereas animals and pets give companionship and pleasure 

in daily living, share the homes of nearly 
2 

•HCON 142 EH 

69,000,000 individuals or families in the United States, 

and provide special benefits to elderly persons and children; 

Whereas the people of the United States have a firm commitment to promote responsible care of animals and pets 

and guard against cruel and irresponsible treatment; 

Whereas teaching kindness and respect for all living animals 

through education in schools and communities is essential 

to the basic values of a humane and civilized society; 

Whereas the people of the United States are grateful to the 

veterinary medical profession for providing preventive 

and emergency medical care and assistance to animals, 

spaying and neutering animals to combat overpopulation, 

and contributing to the education of animal owners; and 

Whereas the people of the United States are indebted to animal protection organizations, State humane organizations, and local animal care and control agencies for promoting respect for animals and pets, educating children 

about humane attitudes, and caring for lost, unwanted, 

abused, and abandoned animals: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress— 

3 (1) that there should be established an annual 

4 National Pet Week; and 
3 

•HCON 142 EH 

1 (2) the goals and ideals expressed during Na2 tional Pet Week should be guides for the people of 

3 the United States to observe in the care of pets. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 142 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that there 

should be established a National Pet Week.
# C_2017095EN.01000801.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators)

(Case T-98/15) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court - Saturation of the state of the art))

(2017/C 095/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and S. Di Natale, and subsequently by S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

| 4. | Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
# C_2016243EN.01001501.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/15

---

Appeal brought on 18 November 2015 by Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in Case T-453/14 Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság

European Parliament

(Case C-607/15 P)

(2016/C 243/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7302

DAVID SONNY LYNCH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-1365-1-BEL) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Sonny Lynch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, 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: David Sonny Lynch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Lynch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 48723.

#### Protests 756895-G, etc., of Norse Produce Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269 the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, allowing 21⁄2 percent in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings.
# Fourth Court of **Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 17, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00496

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.S.L. AND K.J.L., CHILDREN,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 01773

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File State ’s Brief is hereby GRANTED.

Time is extended to October 18, 2018.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.33


 


Property
Lease Agreement


 


Lessor
(Party A): Shanghai Longrich Industrial Co.,Ltd.


 


Lessee
(Party B): Shanghai Juhao Information Technology Co., Ltd


 


On
the basis of voluntariness and equality, Party A and Party B have reached the following agreement on property leasing through consultation:


 


		1.	Location,
area, structure, decoration and facilities of the property: Located at 2nd Floor, 285 Jiangpu Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, covering
an area of 700 square meters.



 


		2.	Lease
                                            purpose: For Party B’s daily office use.



 


		3.	Lease
                                            term: From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022



 


		4.	Rent
                                            and payment method: The rent is RMB 661,500 per year.



 


		5.	Property
                                            maintenance responsibility: Party B shall not change the property structure during the use.



 


		6.	Agreement
                                            on sublease: During the lease term, if Party A transfers the ownership of the leased property
                                            to a third party, it is not necessary to seek the consent of the lessee, but it shall inform
                                            the lessee of the transfer of ownership. If Party B transfers the lease to a third party
                                            due to work needs, it must obtain the consent of the lessor in advance.



 


		7.	Modification
                                            and termination of contract:



 


If
one party fails to perform the contract for more than 10 days, non-breaching party has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally.


 


		8.	Rights
                                            and obligations of Party A and Party B:



 


		8.1	Rights
and obligations of Party A:



 


Party
A shall ensure the completion of the property infrastructure and shall not sublet the property without the permission of Party B.


 


		8.2	Rights
and obligations of Party B:



 


		i.	Party
B shall pay the rent on time and have the obligation to maintain and repair the property during the lease period.



 


		ii.	During
                                            the lease period of the property, all expenses incurred by Party B due to its production
                                            and operation shall be borne by Party B itself.



 


		9.	This
Agreement shall come into force from the date of execution. In case of any dispute, both parties shall settle it through negotiation.
If the negotiation fails, the dispute shall be submitted to Changshu people's court for judgment.



 


		10.	This
agreement is made in duplicate, one for each party.



 


	Party
    A:	Party
    B:
	 	 
	Legal
    Person	Legal
    Person:
	 	 
	Signing
    date: January 1, 2022
# C_2015107EN.01002001.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 January 2015 — Cdiscount SA v Ministère public

(Case C-13/15)

(2015/C 107/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Cdiscount SA

Respondent: Ministère public

Question referred

Do Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (1) preclude a rule which prohibits, in all circumstances and regardless of the impact they may have on the decision of the average consumer, price reductions which are not calculated against a reference price laid down by regulation?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations for the
quarter ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         116,937
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     96,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               844,657
<PP&E>                                       9,104,276
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,835,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,209,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,746,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,015
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,209,435
<SALES>                                      1,852,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,322,670
<CGS>                                          969,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  969,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,926,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,019
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (611,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (611,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (611,204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016156EN.01005402.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/54

---

Order of the General Court of 8 March 2016 — Hmicho v Council

(Case T-275/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 156/74)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---