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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1709 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1709

    To temporarily reduce interest rates for certain small business 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 13, 2011

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To temporarily reduce interest rates for certain small business 
                disaster loans, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Disaster Assistance 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 7(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
636(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (8) and 
        notwithstanding'';
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (8) and 
        notwithstanding''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(8) Property Damage to Businesses.--The interest rate on the 
Federal share of any loan under subsection (b)(1) made to a business 
concern on or after August 26, 2011, shall be--
            ``(A) 1 percent per year, in the case of a business concern 
        unable to obtain credit elsewhere; and
            ``(B) 3 percent per year, in the case of a business concern 
        able to obtain credit elsewhere.''.
    (b) Prospective Repeal.--Effective September 30, 2014, section 7(d) 
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(d)), as amended by subsection 
(a) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Except as provided in 
        paragraph (8) and notwithstanding'' and inserting 
        ``Notwithstanding'';
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``Except as provided in 
        paragraph (8) and notwithstanding'' and inserting 
        ``Notwithstanding''; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (8).
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# POL: fueling the mission

By Airman 1st Class Alexandria Lee100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs

                RAF MILDENHALL, England  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Royal Air Force Mildenhall website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

POLoilpetroleumlubricantsRoyal Air Force Mildenhall100th Logistics Readiness Squadron
# C_2014372EN.01001601.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit)

(Case T-494/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a broken cookie - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

2014/C 372/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biscuits Poult SAS (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Abello, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2012 (Case R 914/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Banketbakkerij Merba BV and Biscuits Poult SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# Logistics On Location: DLA Warfighter First, Joint Base Lewis-McChord

DLA Video Productions Team

                JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Washington  –              
View in open caption.

The Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) Logistics Readiness Center (LRC) Maintenance Division is one of the busiest shops in DOD. They require thousands of parts a year to perform the maintenance needed to get equipment back put to the units and into the field. The team at DLA Land is focused on Warfighter First and because they understand how critical it is for the LRC to receive parts on-time, they work hard to understand JBLM’s requirements and expedite parts. For the DLA Land team, it’s all about supporting readiness.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MVideo L&MJBLMJoint Base Lewis-McChordLogistics on Location
#### Doris Jean MOWE, Appellant, v. Wayne Thomas MOWE, Appellee.

No. 98-151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Steven J. Baker of Baker, Duke *&*Hool-man, P.A., Pensacola, and Marcia K. Lip-pincott of Marcia K. Lippincott, P.A., Mait-land, for Appellant.

Keith A. Mclver of Chase, Quinnell & Mclver, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The parties have appealed and cross-appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm the distribution of property and the alimony award. Because the former husband’s income is substantially greater than the former wife’s, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering *603each party to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. *See, e.g., Sever v. Sever,*684 So.2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); *Tanck v. Tanck,*675 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment except as to the trial court’s failure to order the former husband to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and DAVIS, JJ„ CONCUR.
#### W. B. Quaintance & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6545.

Entry No. 740015, etc.

Invoices dated Glasgow, Scotland, January 21, 1946, etc.

Certified January 22, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 4, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 22, 1946)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accoidingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Chemotherapy and you: a guideto self-help during treatment.**
 
1999
2011:PDFMobiePub
2018:PDFMobiePub
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3158: C 42/
Item Number:0507-G-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:
 
September 27, 2018
34164.

#### TUGGLE v. TUGGLE.

Argued October 10, 1978

Decided November 22, 1978.

Jordan, Justice.

This is an appeal by the husband from a judgment granting divorce to both parties and awarding custody of a minor child to the wife.

There are several enumerations of error but the main thrust of the appeal is that the trial court "erred in hearing and determining the issues without the intervention of a jury, notwithstanding the appellant’s demand for a jury trial.”

After a complete review of the record and transcript, we firmly conclude that there was no issue of fact as to the marriage being irretrievably broken. We find no error in the granting of a divorce to both parties on this issue, after a hearing, and without the intervention of a jury, and the award of custody of the child to the wife. *Dickson v. Dickson,*238 Ga. 672 (235 SE2d 479) (1977).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*607
      *Elsie Higgs Griner, J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellant.

*Alexander, Vann & Lilly, Charles H. Watt, III,*for appellee.
# C_2013147EN.01003601.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/36

---

Action brought on 24 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-101/12)

2013/C 147/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to withdraw the offer of transfer of pension rights accepted by the applicant and to replace it with another, calculated on the basis of the new GIP.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful;

| — | Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 annulling and replacing the offer of transfer of pension rights accepted on 28 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 annulling and replacing the offer of transfer of pension rights accepted on 28 July 2010;

| — | Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 to apply the parameters set out in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 to apply the parameters set out in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Alvin H. Broser, Respondent, *v.*Royal Abstract Corp., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 17, 1966.

*883
      *Hyman B. Schutser*for appellant. *Harry Orner*and *Zarah Williamson*for respondent. *Morris Permut*and *Michael Permut*for New York State Title Association, *amicus curies.*

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment must be modified since the certificate of title liability contains a valid exculpatory clause, sufficient to insulate the defendant abstract company from liability in excess of $1,000, regardless of whether the action sounds in tort or contract.

Further, dismissal of the counterclaim was improper, since plaintiff’s law firm stands personally liable for contracts executed as agent for undisclosed principals *(Goodman Prods. Corp.*v. *A. Lustig, Inc.,*265 App. Div. 506).

The judgment should be modified by decreasing the recovery thereof to the sum of $1,000 with interest and judgment directed for the defendant on its counterclaim in the sum of $253.50 with interest, and, as modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Gold, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.
No. 96-5952.

#### Pridgett *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### 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 September 11, 2009

l0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138731 & (56)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138731 COA: 281383 Oakland CC: 2006-211804-FH PERNICIOUS LEE CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
remand is DENIED.
No. D-27.

#### In re Disbarment of McDermott.

It having been reported to this Court that Francis X. Mc-Dermott, of New York, N. Y., has been disbarred from the practice of law in all of the courts of the State of New York, and this Court by order of November 18, 1974 [419 U. S. 1016], having suspended the said Francis X. McDermott from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon the respondent and that the time within which to file a return has expired;

It is ordered that the said Francis X. McDermott be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.
# C_2014129EN.01001901.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiator)

(Case T-315/12) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a radiator for heating - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - No scope for innovation - Obligation to state reasons))

(2014/C 129/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by F. Mattina initially, then P. Bullock, Agents)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It Srl and Tubes Radiatori Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 953/2011-3);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

3.

Orders OHIM 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 273, 8.9.2012.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006 (the“Quarterly Report”), I, James W. Cruckshank, Vice President of Administrationand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Quarterly Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.     The information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| May 15, 2006 |   |
|--------------|--------|
|         |   |
|         | By     |   | /s/ James  W. Cruckshank |
|         |   | James W. Cruckshank |
|         |   | Vice President of  Administration and  Chief Financial Officer |
|              |        |  |  |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

 

US LEC of North Carolina Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Georgia Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Tennessee Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Florida Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of South Carolina Inc. (Delaware Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Alabama Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Maryland Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Pennsylvania Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC Communications Inc. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of Virginia L.L.C. (Delaware Limited Liability Company) 

 

US LEC Acquisition Co. (North Carolina Corporation) 

 

US LEC of New York Inc. (North Carolina Corporation)