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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1168 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 

inadmissible individuals who law enforcement knows, or has reasonable 

grounds to believe, seek entry into the United States to participate 

in illegal activities with criminal gangs located in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to make inadmissible individuals who law enforcement knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, seek 

entry into the United States to participate in illegal 

activities with criminal gangs located in the United 

States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that— 
2 

•S 1168 IS

1 (1) violent crimes committed by criminal street 

2 gangs in cities throughout the United States has 

3 been increasing; 

4 (2) these criminal gangs have been involved in 

5 human smuggling, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, 

6 brutal killings, and other violent crimes; and 

7 (3) individuals are entering the United States 

8 with the intent of joining criminal gangs based in 

9 the United States and engaging in criminal activity. 

10 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL GANG ACTIVITY. 

11 Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

12 Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the 

13 end the following: 

14 ‘‘(J) CRIMINAL GANG ACTIVITY.— 

15 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any alien who a 

16 consular officer or the Attorney General 

17 knows, or has reasonable grounds to be18 lieve, seeks to enter the United States to 

19 engage, solely, principally, or incidentally 

20 in a criminal street gang located in the 

21 United States is inadmissible. 

22 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITION.—In this subpara23 graph, the term ‘criminal street gang’ 

24 means an ongoing group, club, organiza25 tion, or association of 5 or more individ-
3 

•S 1168 IS

1 uals that commits a violation of Federal or 

2 State law that is punishable by imprison3 ment of 1 year or more.’’. 

Æ
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20863]

[[Page 42588]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 11, 1997.
    Time: 11 a.m.
    Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact Person: Phyllis D. Artis, Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-6470.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: July 31, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-20863 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
EXHIBIT
                               21<PAGE>
Staff Builders, Inc. (DE)
     
     Staff Builders International, Inc. (NY)
     ATC Healthcare Services, Incorporated (GA)
          ATC Staffing Services, Inc. (DE)
     Albert Gallatin Home Care, Inc. (DE)
     Careco, Inc. (MA)
     T.L.C. Medicare Services, Inc. (DE)
     T.L.C. Midwest, Inc. (DE)
     Tender Loving Care Health Care Services, Inc. (CT)
     Loving Home Care, Inc. (NY)
     Home Health Care, Inc. (MD)
     Personnel Industries, Inc. (MD)
     T.L.C. Home Health Care, Inc. (FL)
     
          T.L.C. Medicare Services of Dade, Inc. (FL)
          T.L.C. Medicare Services of Broward, Inc. (FL)
          Tender Loving Care Private Patient Company, Inc. (FL)

     Tender Loving Care Home Care Services, Inc. (NY)

          U.S. Ethicare Corporation (DE)

               U.S. Ethicare Albany Corporation (NY)
               U.S. Ethicare Chautauqua Corporation (NY)
               U.S. Ethicare Erie Corporation (NY)
               U.S. Ethicare Niagara Corporation (NY)
               U.S. Ethicare Onondaga Corporation (NY)
               Ethicare Certified Services, Inc. (NY)

     Staff Builders, Inc. (NY)

          Advanced Management Solutions, Inc. (DE)
          Albert Gallatin Services Corporation (PA)
          S.B.H.F., Inc. (NY)
          Staff Builders Services, Inc. (NY)
               MedVisit, Inc. (NC)
          Staff Builders Home Health Care, Inc. (DE)
          Staff Builders Personnel Services, Inc. (NY)
          Staff Builders Prescription Services, Inc. (CO)
          Professional Detail Services, Inc. (NY)
          A Reliable Homemaker of Martin-St. Lucie County,
               Inc.(FL)
          St. Lucie Home Health Agency, Inc. (FL)
          S.B. Assured Home Care, Inc. (DE)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

May 28, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00333-CV

IN RE JOSE GOMEZ AND EDUARDO GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

FORMER REPRESENTATIVES OF MCCARTY TRUCK WASH & LUBE, 

INC., GOMEZ MCCARTY TRUCK WASH & LUBE, INC. F/K/A 

MCCARTY TRUCK WASH & LUBE, INC., AND BROTHERS TIRE 

SERVICES, INC. D/B/A MCCARTY TRUCK WASH, LUBE & TIRES,

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-56104

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 14, 2015, relators Jose Gomez and Eduardo Gomez, Individually 

and as Former Representatives of McCarty Truck Wash & Lube, Inc., Gomez 
2

McCarty Truck Wash & Lube Inc. f/k/a McCarty Truck Wash & Lube, Inc., and 

Brothers Tire Services, Inc. d/b/a McCarty Truck Wash, Lube & Tires filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 

(West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask this court to 

compel the Honorable Elaine Palmer, presiding judge of the 215th District Court of 

Harris County, to set aside her December 24, 2014 order, granting real parties in 

interest’s motion to strike relators’ affirmative defenses.

On May 19, 2015, relators filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding 

because the parties have settled the underlying case. Relators’ requested relief is 

now moot. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed. 

We also lift our stay entered on May 5, 2015.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
#### Thomas S. Battelle, plaintiff in error, *vs.*J. Bridgman & Co., defendants in error.

*Error to Muscatine.*

Where a writ of error was sued out, before the law required a writ of error bond to operate asa supersedeas, a change of the law would not operate upon the case so a3 to allow a dismissal of the writ. Nor would a change of the time of suing out the writ, operate upon a ease already in court.

Although the confession of a judgment is a waiver of formal errors, it does not prevent the defendant from seeking to reverse the judgment confessed, for errors of substance.

The only points decided in this case were on a motion to dismiss the writ of error, which are recited in the opinion of the court.

WiiicheR, for plaintiff in error.

Lowe, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

In this case it is moved to dismiss the writ of error for the following reasons :

1. Because no writ of error bond has been executed by the plaintiff in error.

2. Because the writ of error was not sued out within the time prescribed by law.

3. Because the judgment brought up by the writ of error was one of confession, and ail errors released.

The first and second of the above reasons, will be disposed of by observing that the writ of error was brought before the new law took effect. No bond was then necessary, unless the party wished to have the writ operate as a supersedeas. The law at that time also gave the party two years within which to bring his writ of error. It seems to have been brought within that time. The subsequent change of the law would not operate on a case already in court.

As to the third reason above set forth for the dismissal of the writ, it is to he observed that although the confession of a judgment is a waiver of formal errors, it does not preyent the defendant from objecting in this manner to errors of substance. If for instance the power of attorney authorized the entering up of a judgment for a particular sum, and the *364judgment should actually be entered up for a larger amount, is the party prevented from seeking a remedy in this way ? Such it is contended is the case in the present instance. Motion overruled.
No. 00-5529.

#### Alahmad *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Third Division,

August 23, 1938

No. 39253.

#### Protest 726591-G of Strawbridge & Clothier (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The court was unable to determine from the record as presented at what rate the currency should have been converted in order to comply with section 522, Tariff Act of 1930. The protest was therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,766
<INVENTORY>                                     43,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,298
<PP&E>                                          61,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,066
<BONDS>                                        187,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,981
<SALES>                                        290,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               290,139
<CGS>                                          213,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  275,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    813
<INCOME-TAX>                                       903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (90)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (90)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
First Issue dated 24 April 2015 Page 1 of 2

vulcanair spa

via g. pascoli, 7

80026 casoria (na) – italia

Tel +39 081 5918111

Fax +39 081 5918172

info@vulcanair.com

www.vulcanair.com

P.68 VARIANTS

Approved by the Vulcanair Design Organisation

The technical content of this document is approved under the authority of DOA No. EASA.21J.009. 

Operator obligations with regards to inspections, modifications and/or other technical directives and their times of 

compliance are laid out in the relative Airworthiness Directives.

SERVICE BULLETIN

No. 244

Design Organisation Approval No. AS-SB/15/006 dated 27 April 2015

MANDATORY

SUBJECT: AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL CHANGE

1. GENERAL 

1.1 AIRCRAFT AFFECTED

P.68R aircraft up to s/n 480.

1.2 PURPOSE

This Service Bulletin has been issued to give mandatory action to replace the applicable 

Aircraft Flight Manual with its latest revision including the changes related to the AEO 

Rate of Climb (ROC) performance which were over-estimated by approximately 30% in 

the previous revisions of the AFM.

1.3 DESCRIPTION

New flight tests have demonstrated that the AEO ROC performance are different from 

those declared and published in the current revision of applicable Aircraft Flight Manual, 

both for MTOW of 1960 kg and 2063 kg.

This Service Bulletin introduces a new revision of the Aircraft Flight Manuals for P.68R 

variant as a consequence of the correction of the above over-estimation of AEO ROC data.

1.4 COMPLIANCE

Within 15 May 2015.
Vulcanair S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 244

First Issue dated 24 April 2015 Page 2 of 2

1. GENERAL (Cont.)

1.5 TIME REQUIRED

Negligible.

1.6 SPECIAL TOOLS

No special tool is required. 

1.7 VARIATION IN WEIGHT & BALANCE

Not Applicable.

1.8 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LOAD

Not Applicable.

1.9 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

 Applicable Aircraft Flight Manual.

1.10 PUBLICATIONS AFFECTED

NOR10.707-30 (AFM P.68R s/n 40)

NOR10.707-30B (AFM P.68R s/n 430)

NOR10.707-30C (AFM P.68R from s/n 453 onwards)

 

1.11 APPLICATION TO BE CARRIED OUT BY

Aircraft Owner/Operator

2. WORK PROCEDURE

1. Consult Vulcanair website www.vulcanair.com

2. Download free of charge the applicable Aircraft Flight Manual revision as below 

described:

NOR10.707-30 rev.2 for P.68R s/n 40

NOR10.707-30B rev.19 for P.68R s/n 430

NOR10.707-30C rev.27 for P.68R from s/n 453 onwards

Alternatively, contact Vulcanair Parts Dept. at parts@vulcanair.com to request a paper 

copy.

3. Insert the revised pages in the Aircraft Flight Manual currently in use on the airplane.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                       CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT

                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    I, Ramon Chimelis, president, treasurer, and secretary, certify that the
forgoing quarterly report on Form 10-QSB containing the financial statements
set forth within fully comply with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that
information contained in the quarterly report presents fairly, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Big
Sky Industries IX, Inc.

Date: May 20, 2003                  /s/ Ramon Chimelis
                                    --------------------
                                    Ramon Chimelis
                                    President



<PAGE>
No. 00-699.

#### Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co. et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1168 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1168

  To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 
 inadmissible individuals who law enforcement knows, or has reasonable 
grounds to believe, seek entry into the United States to participate in 
  illegal activities with criminal gangs located in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2005

  Mr. Nelson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 
 inadmissible individuals who law enforcement knows, or has reasonable 
grounds to believe, seek entry into the United States to participate in 
  illegal activities with criminal gangs located in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) violent crimes committed by criminal street gangs in 
        cities throughout the United States has been increasing;
            (2) these criminal gangs have been involved in human 
        smuggling, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, brutal killings, 
        and other violent crimes; and
            (3) individuals are entering the United States with the 
        intent of joining criminal gangs based in the United States and 
        engaging in criminal activity.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL GANG ACTIVITY.

    Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(J) Criminal gang activity.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Any alien who a consular 
                        officer or the Attorney General knows, or has 
                        reasonable grounds to believe, seeks to enter 
                        the United States to engage, solely, 
                        principally, or incidentally in a criminal 
                        street gang located in the United States is 
                        inadmissible.
                            ``(ii) Definition.--In this subparagraph, 
                        the term `criminal street gang' means an 
                        ongoing group, club, organization, or 
                        association of 5 or more individuals that 
                        commits a violation of Federal or State law 
                        that is punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or 
                        more.''.
                                 <all>
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


October 20, 1998


We   consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the
registration statements of XCL Ltd. and Subsidiaries on Form
S-3  (File Nos. 33-41458, 33-83122 and 33-68552) and on Form
S-8  (File  No. 33-62956 and 33-59799) of our report,  which
includes  an  explanatory paragraph regarding the  Company's
ability  to  continue as a going concern,  dated  April  10,
1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and   financial   statement  schedule  of   XCL   Ltd.   and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for  each
of  the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which 
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Miami, Florida
Exhibit 23.1



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the Registration
Statement on Form  S-8  (No.  33-50508)  pertaining to the Maxicare
Health  Plans,  Inc.  1990  Stock  Option  Plan,  the  stock option
agreement with Peter J.  Ratican  dated  December  5, 1990, and the
stock option agreement with  Eugene  L.  Froelich dated December 5,
1990;  and  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statement on Form S-8  (No.  333-12803)  pertaining to the Maxicare
Health Plans,  Inc.  Outside  Directors  1996  Formula Stock Option
Plan, the Maxicare Health Plans,  Inc. Senior Executives 1996 Stock
Option Plan, the  Maxicare  Health  Plans,  Inc.  1995 Stock Option
Plan, the Restricted Stock Grant  Agreement by and between Maxicare
Health Plans, Inc. and Peter  J.  Ratican  dated as of February 27,
1995 and  the  Restricted  Stock  Grant  Agreement  by  and between
Maxicare Health Plans,  Inc.  and  Eugene  L.  Froelich dated as of
February 27, 1995 of our report  dated February 7, 1998 except Note
5 which  date  is  February  28,  1998  with  respect  to  the 1997
consolidated financial statements and  schedules of Maxicare Health
Plans, Inc. in its annual  report  on  Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1997.




                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Los Angeles, California
March 27, 1998
Exhibit 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-41995 of Halifax Corporation on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Halifax Corporation 1994 Key Employee Stock Option Plan and Non-Employee
Directors Stock Option Plan of our report dated June 15, 2000 (July 5,
2000 as to Note 6),  (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to discontinued operations),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Halifax Corporation for
the year ended March 31, 2000.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, VA
July 11, 2000
# C_2013178EN.01000601.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Finanzamt Saarlouis v Heinz Malburg

(Case C-204/13)

2013/C 178/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Saarlouis

Defendant and appellant on a point of law:

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Heinz Malburg

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Having regard to the principle of tax neutrality, must Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) be interpreted as meaning that a partner in a partnership of tax advisors who acquires from the partnership a portion of its client base for the sole purpose of providing directly thereafter to a newly founded partnership of tax advisors, in which he is the principal partner, a licence to use such client base for commercial purposes and free of charge may be entitled to deduct the input tax arising from the acquisition of the client base?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
#### Freddie Lee WRAGGS v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50007.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 18, 1977.

Noel D. Crook, Ruleville, Ben L. Saucier, Indianola, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Henry T. Wingate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sunflower County; Arthur B. Clark, Jr., Judge.

Before PATTERSON, P. J., and WALKER and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

GILLESPIE, C. J., INZER, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ., concur.