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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 216 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 216

  Recognizing the wine and winegrape industry of Texas for having an 
       economic impact of $1,000,000,000 on the economy of Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2007

 Mr. Conaway (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Granger, Mr. McCaul 
of Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Paul, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Al Green of Texas, 
  Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Smith of 
Texas, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Hinojosa, 
 Mr. Sessions, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the wine and winegrape industry of Texas for having an 
       economic impact of $1,000,000,000 on the economy of Texas.

Whereas, since 2000, the wine and winegrape industry of Texas has experienced 
        tremendous growth, with nearly 90 percent of such growth resulting from 
        an increase in the number and revenue of small wineries producing less 
        than 5,000 gallons of wine each year;
Whereas, since 2000, wine production in Texas has grown by 30 percent, making 
        Texas the fifth most productive State in wine production; and
Whereas, in 2005, the wine and winegrape industry of Texas--

    (1) included 113 wineries and 220 commercial growers of winegrapes on 
2,900 acres;

    (2) produced over 626,000 cases of wine;

    (3) provided the equivalent of 8,000 full-time jobs and paid over 
$234,000,000 in wages to workers;

    (4) generated revenue from wineries that produced an economic impact of 
$91,500,000 on the economy of Texas;

    (5) generated over $10,000,000 in revenue from vineyards in Texas;

    (6) attracted over 868,000 tourists to Texas, who spent over 
$220,000,000; and

    (7) generated over $69,000,000 in Federal, State, and local taxes: Now, 
therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress recognizes the wine and winegrape industry of Texas for 
having an economic impact of $1,000,000,000 on the economy of Texas.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134762 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134762 COA: 277122 Wayne CC: 03-008761-01 WENDELL GREEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1119 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.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
H. Con. Res. 293 Agreed to February 14, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of 

Thursday, February 14, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to 

this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Friday, February 15, 2008, 

or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; that when the House 

adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, February 15, 2008, on 

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. 

on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly 

pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

first; that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, February 19, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

adjourned until noon on Thursday, February 21, 2008, or until 

the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

resolution, whichever occurs first; that when the House adjourns 

on the legislative day of Thursday, February 21, 2008, on a motion 

offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 25, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; 

and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Friday, February 15, 2008, through Friday, February 22, 2008, 

on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 

until noon on Monday, February 25, 2008, or such other time 

on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, 

or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the 

Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 

House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place 
H. Con. Res. 293—2 

and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public 

interest shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2005D-0019]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry and Food and 
Drug Administration Staff on Class II Special Controls Guidance 
Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by 
Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and 
Drug Administration Staff on Class II Special Controls Guidance 
Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by 
Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle'' has been approved by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 2, 2006 (71 
FR 32101), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0594. 
The approval expires on September 30, 2009. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: January 16, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-804 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                               8,533
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       63,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,441
<INVENTORY>                                        199,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   280,786
<PP&E>                                             316,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                     212,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     449,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               51,097
<BONDS>                                            253,155
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          1,698
<COMMON>                                            30,050
<OTHER-SE>                                         107,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       449,033
<SALES>                                             71,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    71,638
<CGS>                                               65,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       77,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (1,066)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       172
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (11,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (4,174)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (7,107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (7,107)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.24)
        


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-1775

___________________________ Gabriel Cassell lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. The County of Ramsey; Ramsey County

District Court Administration; Ramsey County Guardian Ad Litem Program; Ramsey County Child Support Enforcement; Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney; Attorney Autumn Tomkins; Joan Fitzgerald; Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin; Judge John T.

Finley; Judge Steven D. Wheeler; Judge Edward J. Cleary; Judge M. Michael Monahan; J udge George T. Stephenson; Judge Dale B. Lindman; Judge John Van De North; Judge Diane Alshouse; Referee Charles H. Williams, Jr.;

Referee Mary E. Madden; Magistrate Brad A. Johnson; Magistrate Colia F. Cei sel; Olivia Jassah Cassell; Attorney Julie L. La Fleur; A ttorney Amanda L. Hagen; and Hansen Dordell Bradt Odlaug & Bradt, PLLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________ Submitted: November 6, 2012 Filed: November 7, 2012 [Unpublished]

____________Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Gabriel Cassell appeals the district court’s 1 judgment granting defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 acti on, and denying as moot his motion for a preliminary injunction. Following caref ul review, we conclude that Cassell’s complaint, which sought to overturn state-c ourt rulings made in the course of five years of child custody and support litigation, was properly dismissed. See Skit Int’l, Ltd. v. DAC Tech. of Ark., Inc. , 487 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of district court’s dismissal under Rooker -Feldman 2doctrine, which prohibits lower federal courts from exercising appe llate review of state-court judgments); Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp. , 188 F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (8th Cir. 1999) (generally no fraud exception to Rooker -Feldman ); see also Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n , 457 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1982) (no federal interference with pending state judicial proceedings ab sent extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendations of the Honorable Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2 See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923). -2-
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31012

Summary Calendar

KENTON MERCER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana 

(96-CV-1533)

July 2, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Kenton Mercer appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint challenging the Commissioner’s determination that he be

denied social security disability benefits. After review of the

record and Mercer’s arguments on appeal, we AFFIRM for the reasons

adopted by the district court. Mercer v. Apfel, No. 96-CV-1533
2

(W.D. La. Aug. 21, 1997).
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Wade Haufschild, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (this “**Report**”) of Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc.; and

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report.

 

Date:  April 30, 2019

 
| /s/ WADE HAUFSCHILD     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Wade Haufschild         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
# C_2015213EN.01004601.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/46

---

Action brought on 17 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-56/15)

(2015/C 213/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of decisions reducing the correction coefficient applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who reside in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension slips of June 2014 and the compensation for the non-pecuniary loss allegedly incurred as a result of discrepancies and contradictions in the information used to justify the contested decisions.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs and to pay a fixed sum ex aequo et bono as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs and to pay a fixed sum ex aequo et bono as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered.

ex aequo et bono

---
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 12, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt                |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Harvey B. Grossblatt                    |
|                  |   | President, Chief Executive Officer      |
|                  |   | (principal executive officer)           |
|                  |   |                                    |
|                  | By:    | /s/ James B. Huff                       |
|                  |   | James B. Huff                           |
|                  |   | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
|                  |   | (principal financial officer)           |

----
(Reap. Dec. 8859)

#### H. Z. Bernstein Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 40613-1/4.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel, for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of chinaware imported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the instant appeal to reappraisement is limited to the merchandise covered by Invoice No. 1, being that merchandise shipped by Rosenthal Porzellan Fabrik, A. G., and is abandoned in all other respects.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at *707which, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of packing, was the appraised value less the advance made by the importer on entry because of additions by the appraiser in similar cases.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the instant appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by invoice No. 1, shipped by Rosenthal Porzellan Fabrik, A. G., and that such value was the appraised value, less the advance made by the importer on entry because of additions by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    5,390,727
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    100,366
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         435,682
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        39,572
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 849,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,815,989
<COMMON>                                       510,619
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      716,879
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,091,090
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,318,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    155,197
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,879,651
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              33,900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    5,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     80,798
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                32,631
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,310,224
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,815,989
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      487,258
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            21,335
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     400,336
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     421,671
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         65,587
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (204)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  65,383
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        33,753
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,630
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,204
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   29,426
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        64,849
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      112,905
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          65,555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
May 2, 1969

No. 69-15

#### William J. Brooks, SSG, U. S. Army v “The Secretary of the Army; all those subordinates who have Courts-Martial convening authority. CG-3rd Arm. Div. and COL Roland Heiser CO — DISCOM 3rd Arm. Div.”.

ORDERED that said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the proceedings of a special court-martial without reporter cannot result in a sentence within this Court’s authority to review.

Chief Judge Quinn

concurs in this action because the Petition does not set forth a ground for relief. Lowe v Laird et al., 18 USCMA 131, 39 CMR 131.
Order entered July 26 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00651
- CV
ANDREW WHITE , CHELSEA BALESTRA, W ESLEY MURRAY , DAVID GAWLAS, AND BE NJAMIN LORD, Appellant s V. NATIONAL HEALTH INVE STORS AND NHI
- REIT O F AXEL LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 07841



### O RDER Before the Court is the July 23, 2019 unopposed motion of appellee NHI

- REIT of Axel
LL C for an extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 20, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 40380.

#### Petition 5643-R of Jenkins Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was found that the petitioners honestly believed that their entered values were correct and that they exhausted every available legal remedy in an attempt to vindicate such belief. As there was no intention to defraud the petition was granted.