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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 181 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and commending all volunteers and other persons who provide support to the families and children 

of members of the Armed Forces, including National 

Guard and Reserve personnel, who are deployed in service to the United States. 

Whereas there are 1.2 million children who are the sons or 

daughters of members of the Armed Forces, including 

more than 153,000 children of members of reserve components, and more than one third of these children are 

under the age of five; 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces, 

and in particular their children, provide 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

HCON 181 RFS 

unconditional love and support to their loved ones serving 

in the Armed Forces before, during, and after their deployment; 

Whereas the Department of Defense recognizes that the family of a deployed member of the Armed Forces also serves 

and has made a commitment to military families by establishing goals for a New Social Compact with members 

of the Armed Forces and their families; 

Whereas the Government makes significant resources available to families and children of members of the Armed 

Forces who reside on or near a military installation, however, resources for families and children of deployed Reserve and National Guard members are often difficult to 

access because the families do not reside near a military 

installation; 

Whereas a number of nonprofit organizations have dedicated 

themselves to ensuring that children of military families 

receive the support they urgently need while they cope 

with the deployment of parents, in particular by providing essential extracurricular activities and programs 

for school-aged children of deployed Reserve and National 

Guard members; 

Whereas these organizations include Our Military Kids, Inc., 

Parents as Teachers, Citizen Soldier Support program, 

Operation Homefront Inc., American Military Families, 

Inc., and Kids Serve 2; and 

Whereas these programs and organizations have helped children of deployed members of the Armed Forces maintain 

as normal a life as possible by allowing funds to be used 

for a range of activities that might otherwise be unavailable to them: Now, therefore, be it 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

HCON 181 RFS 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes and commends all 

3 volunteers and other persons who provide support to the 

4 families and children of members of the Armed Forces, 

5 including National Guard and Reserve personnel, who are 

6 deployed in service to the United States and honors mili7 tary families and the non-governmental organizations that 

8 support them. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 5, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By JORGE E. SORENSEN, 

Deputy Clerk. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
Before the First Division,

December 11, 1951

No. 56157.

protests 142389-K, etc. (New York).

#### Empire Fashion Jewelry Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54856.

#### Charlotte Blodget et al. *v.*United States,

protests 115540-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2004094EN.01004103.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/41

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 26 January 2004

in Case T-386/02 Lamprecht A.G. against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Not necessary to give judgment)

(2004/C 94/119)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-386/02: Lamprecht A.G., established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and J. García Murillo), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) being Clickview Ltd (formerly J. Tricot & Sons Ltd), established in London — action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘EMOSWISS’ in respect of goods in Classes 10, 24 and 25 against Decision R 275/2001-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) of 12 July 2002 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition of the applicant to registration of the Community word mark ‘EMOS’ for certain goods in Class 25 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | It is no longer necessary to give judgment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is no longer necessary to give judgment.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ No C 55, 8.3.2003.

1

---
Comments on 1/14/10 NPDES Webcast Contact: George Robinson, Idaho Dept of Agriculture George.Robinson@agri.idaho.gov
208-332-8593

• Most 303d listed streams are included on the list due to turbidity or nutr ient issues. If the water body is not impaired by the specific pesticid e being applied, will the applicator be able to treat the water body? Ar e lists available to the ge neral public regarding known
contaminates of 303d streams? If that inform ation is available, where can applicators find
those lists? If the stream is on the list due to turbidity or nu trients, that should not prohibit applications of pesticides.

• If a commercial applicator submits copies of hi s application records, in lieu of a summary document with his annual report, would that be a violation? I can imagine that applicators that forget about submitting their annual repo rt on time may look for extreme shortcuts to slide in under the deadline. Will EPA develop a checklist or template that the applicators must use to submit the necessary information?

• Creating a summary of over a thousand application records may result in mistakes and
inaccurate information. If the information is incorrect, due to entry mistakes, what are the consequences to the applicator?

• If the pesticide labels have language that requires the applic ator to comply with NPDES requirements for that pesticide, who will have primacy on enforcing compliance with the NPDES permit? State pesticide lead agencies do a large amount of routine inspections and respond to complaints regarding pesticide applic ations, some of which will involve pesticide products with labels that re quire NPDES permits. The lines of authority are not clear, regarding which agency has primacy for c onducting an investigation resulting from a complaint filed with the state l ead agency for FIFRA complaints.

• Some applicators do not have acce ss to the internet. If the ap plicator mails the NOI, does the 10 day waiting period still apply? If not, how long is the waiting period?

• On thresholds for ditches, the distance is c onsidered doubled, if both sides of the ditch are treated. Some irrigation ditches are only 1-2 fe et wide and do not have irrigation water in them on a regular basis. Both sides of the d itch can be easily treated at the same time. A minimum ditch width, such as 5 feet across, sh ould be considered before the “counting as double” standard is applied.
No. 48727.

#### Protests 44118-K, etc., of Collin & Gissel et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2016-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2018 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2018.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th day of March, 2019.

 
| March 25, 2019 |   |               |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------|
|                |   |               |
|                | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|                | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|                | Title: | President          |

 

----
SERVED: MARCH 25, 2013 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Aviation. Technical Services, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. CP[TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING OF 

FM UBUTT AL BRIEF 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.213 (a), and in light of the scheduled absences ofF AA counsel 

and the agreement of the parties, it is ordered that' the Rebuttal Brief of the Federal Aviation 

Administration, if any, ;n this matter shall be filed on or before Apri125, 2013. 

VZtcLJ c ~r;.JL_p. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachntent - Service List 
2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Dane B. Jacques, Respondent's Counsel 

Dombroff Gilmore Jacques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, PH 

McLean, VA 221 02 

TEL: 703-336-8800 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

CELL: 703-966-6111 

Karen D. Huber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2167 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: .202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl 000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
(Reap. Dec. 9813)

#### Capital Airlines, Inc. Heidl’s, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 489702; 485088.

(Decided October 20, 1960)

*Adair, XJlmer, Murchison, Kent é Aslhby*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain airplanes and parts.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed to the following facts:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation and importation of the airplanes and parts involved in the above reappraisement appeals, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale or sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in *519the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States for domestic consumption pursuant to Section 402 (c) (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that cost of production, as defined in Section 402(f) of said act is the proper basis for appraisement and that such value in each case is as follows:

> As to Reappraisement No. R58/26236:

> Value of each airplane exclusive of engine — English currency £350,000

> Included in such value are articles of American origin which are segre-gable and non-dutiable which are marked in red ink on the entry papers, X and B, and articles which are non-segregable and dutiable which are marked in red ink on the entry papers, A, and articles of foreign origin which are dutiable an’d are marked in red ink on the entry papers O.

> Not included in such value are engines bearing numbers:

> 6215 valued at £12812/11/10

> 6224 valued at £12852/0/6

> 6255 valued at £12852/0/6, and

> 6256 valued at £12852/0/6,

> Plus £1300 for each engine for

> cost of build-up charge.

> As to Reappraisement No. R58/26237:

> Value of each airplane exclusive of engine — English currency £350,000

> Included in such value are articles of American origin which are segregable and non-dutiable which are marked in red ink on the entry papers, X and B, and articles which are non-segregable and dutiable which are marked in red ink on the entry papers, A, and articles of foreign origin which are dutiable and are marked in red ink on the entry papers G.

> Not included in such value are engines bearing numbers:

> 6222 valued at £12833/10/2

> 6223 valued at £12833/10/2

> 6225 valued at £12833/10/2, and

> 6226 valued at £12852/0/6,

> Plus £1300 for each engine for

> cost of build-up charge.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ,§ 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the airplanes and parts in issue and that said value is as set forth in the above-quoted stipulation.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be issued accordingly.
Exhibit 10.2
 
  «Date» «Name»
 «RSUs»
 The Plan.
 Definitions.
 Vesting Date
 Vesting and Delivery. Vesting.
 Portion of theAward That
    
    
    Number of RSUs
    
    
    Aggregate Number ofScheduled
Vesting Date
    
    Vests
    
    
    That Vest
    
    
    RSUs Vested«Vesting_Date»




---



##### 



Delivery of Shares or Cash Pursuant to Settlement of RSUs
 Forfeiture of RSUs
 Voting Rights; Dividends
 Non-Transferability of RSUs
 Withholding, Consents and Legends. Withholding.




---



##### 



Consents.
 Legends.
 Successors and Assigns of the Company.
 Committee Discretion.
 Amendment of this Award Notice. provided however
  UAL CORPORATIONBy:Name:
    Glenn F. TiltonTitle:
    Chairman, President & CEO
EXHIBIT 10.63
January 1, 1996

I understand that URT is simultaneously entering into a letter agreement dated
January 1, 1996 (the "Intercorporate Agreement") with its subsidiary, Peaches
Entertainment Corporation ("PEC"), which provides that URT will make available
to PEC, for the balance of the Period of Employment described in my Employment
Agreement with URT dated October 1, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement"), my
services as PEC's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and that PEC
will pay directly to me, as compensation for such services, the amount described
in the Intercorporate Agreement.

It is the purpose of this letter agreement to confirm that:

       1.     I agree to perform for PEC the services described in the 
              Intercorporate Agreement.

       2.     If, and to the extent that and so long as I receive from PEC the
              compensation described in the Intercorporate Agreement, as it may
              be increased or decreased from time to time, it shall be credited
              against the base salary which is payable to me by URT under the
              Employment Agreement.

       3.     URT may rely on this letter agreement in executing the
              Intercorporate Agreement.

Please sign below to evidence the foregoing.

Sincerely yours,


BY:

/s/                   Allan Wolk
----------------------------------------------------------
                      Allan Wolk

AGREED AND APPROVED:

URT INDUSTRIES, INC.

BY:


/s/                   Brian Wolk
------------------------------------------------------------
                 Brian Wolk, Vice President
# C_2015414EN.01001702.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas lodged on 22 September 2015 — W. and V. v X.

(Case C-499/15)

(2015/C 414/21)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: W. and V.

Applicants:

Defendant: X.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

On the basis of Articles 8 to 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, which Member State — that is to say, the Republic of Lithuania or the Kingdom of the Netherlands — has jurisdiction to deal with the case concerning the changes to the place of residence, to the child maintenance amount and to the applicable contact arrangements in respect of the minor child, V., who is habitually resident in the Kingdom of the Netherlands?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

1

---
# Official Journal C 222/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 222 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5022 September 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 222

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5022 September 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 222/01 | Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.4781 — Norddeutsche Affinerie/Cumerio) (1) | 1 |
| 2007/C 222/02 | List of ships that were refused access to Community ports between 1 October 2006 and 31 August 2007, pursuant to Article 7b of Council Directive 95/21/EC on the port State control of ships | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 222/01

Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.4781 — Norddeutsche Affinerie/Cumerio) (1)

1

2007/C 222/02

List of ships that were refused access to Community ports between 1 October 2006 and 31 August 2007, pursuant to Article 7b of Council Directive 95/21/EC on the port State control of ships

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 222/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2007/C 222/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (1) | 4 |
| 2007/C 222/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) | 8 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 222/03

Euro exchange rates

3

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2007/C 222/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (1)

4

2007/C 222/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1)

8

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 222/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4640 — BAE Systems/VT/JV) (1) | 21 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2007/C 222/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4640 — BAE Systems/VT/JV) (1)

21

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 24, 2010

y0317 

# Order

March 24, 2010

139076 & (27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139076 COA: 290120 Macomb CC: 2 003-002729-FC CLIFFORD GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of December 21, 2009, the de fendant’s former appellate counsel was directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been received, the application for leave to app eal the May 12, 2009 or der of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is DENI ED. The defendant’s attorney acknowledges that the delay in filing the de fendant’s May 23, 2005 applica tion for leave to appeal in
COA No. 262929 was due to the attorney’s erroneous cal culation of the appellate filing deadline, and he admits his so le responsibility for the error. Accordingly, the defendant had been deprived of his direct appeal as a result of constitu tionally ineffective assistance
of counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega , 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United States , 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 9 61; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999). For purposes of MCR 6.502(G)(1 ), the Court notes that the defendant’s January 30, 2009 application for leave to appeal was properly denied under the standard applicable to direct appeals.

Costs are imposed against attorney Joseph L. Stewart, only, in the amount of $250, to be paid to the Cl erk of this Court.