alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 1346

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in

the State of Michigan.

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 ‘‘Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Michigan.

SEC. 3. STUDY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the State,

the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other appropriate State

and local public agencies and private organizations, shall conduct

a special resource study of resources related to the maritime heritage of the State.

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study is to determine—

(1) suitable and feasible options for the long-term protection

of significant maritime heritage resources in the State; and

(2) the manner in which the public can best learn about

and experience the resources.

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the study under subsection

(a), the Secretary shall—

(1) review Federal, State, and local maritime resource

inventories and studies to establish the potential for interpretation and preservation of maritime heritage resources in the

State;

(2) recommend management alternatives that would be

most effective for long-term resource protection and providing

for public enjoyment of maritime heritage resources;

(3) address how to assist regional, State, and local partners

in increasing public awareness of and access to maritime heritage resources;

(4) identify sources of financial and technical assistance

available to communities for the preservation and interpretation of maritime heritage resources; and

(5) identify opportunities for the National Park Service

and the State to coordinate the activities of appropriate units
S. 1346—2

of national, State, and local parks and historic sites in furthering the preservation and interpretation of maritime heritage resources.

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date on which

funds are made available to carry out the study under subsection

(a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources

of the House of Representatives a report that describes—

(1) the results of the study; and

(2) any findings and recommendations of the Secretary.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The PENSION FUND OF the CHRISTIAN CHURCH v. William S. LUCAS.

SC 1965.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 6, 1977.

*1341Roscoe Roberts, Jr., Watts, Salmon, Roberts, Manning & Noojin, Huntsville, for appellant.

Philip A. Geddes, Huntsville, for appellee.

FAULKNER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a member of a pension plan the contributions made by the member to the plan, plus those made by the church on behalf of the member. We reverse.

The sole issue in this case is whether Lucas is entitled to the contribution made by the church on his behalf, upon his withdrawal from the pension plan. The answer is, no, he is not.

Under the pension plan a member contributes 3% of his salary, and the church contributes an amount equivalent to 9% of the member’s salary.

Lucas joined the plan in 1959. On December 1, 1972, he left the church, and elected to leave his contributions with the fund. As of that date he had contributed $2,807.34 and the church had contributed $8,454,12 on his behalf, making a total of $11,261.46 in contributions to the fund.

In July, 1974, Lucas filed suit in assump-sit demanding refund to him of $11,261.46. The pension fund, by answer, said it would tender him the contribution made by him, should he elect to “withdraw or disavow his election.”

Section III of the plan provides for the payment of dues (contributions) by the member and the church as follows:

> “1. MEMBER DUES: The dues of ' the member shall be amounts equivalent to 3 per cent on the monthly salary basis,

> 

> “2. CHURCH DUES: The dues of the church, or other salary-paying organization (hereinafter referred to as church), shall be amounts equivalent to 9 per cent of the monthly salary basis.”

Section IV 3. a. provides for return of member dues upon termination of service:

> “3. TERMINATION OF SERVICE: a. A member ceases to be eligible for active membership by withdrawal from the active service of Disciples of Christ, and he may, upon his demand or upon the action of the Trustees, at any time after such withdrawal receive a sum equal to the total amount of his basic member dues payments, with interest credits at such rates as shall have been fixed from time to time by the Trustees, and he shall have no further claim upon the Fund.”

We hold that Lucas is not entitled to refund of the amount contributed on his behalf by the church. We find no evidence of any undue influence, fraud or mistake, as stated in brief by Lucas.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1656 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1656

             To suspend temporarily the duty on pyridaben.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2005

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on pyridaben.

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

SECTION 1. PYRIDABEN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.03       Pyridaben (CAS     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         No. 96489-71-3)                                                    31/2008
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.99.22)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Philip DASH, Appellant, v. Abel HOLTZ, Appellee. Philip DASH, Appellant, v. BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee. Philip DASH, Appellant, v. Charles DELMONICO et al., Appellees. Charles DELMONICO et al., Appellants, v. Philip DASH, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1381, 76-1382, 76-1450, 76-1324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1977.

*183Shevin, Shapo & Shevin and Ronald A. Shapo, Miami, for Dash.

Noriega, Bartel, Chopp, Schatz, Levine & Shuford and Judy D. Shapiro, Miami, for Holtz.

Cypen & Nevins and Stephen H. Cypen, Miami Beach, for Bank of Miami Beach.

Lawrence C. Porter, Miami, for Delmoni-cos.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Rivers v. Brown,*62 Fla. 258, 56 So. 553 (1911); *Forbes v. Fort Lauderdale Mercantile Co.,*83 Fla. 66, 90 So. 821 (1922); and see *Rothstein v. Forty-Five, Twenty-Five, Inc.,*145 So.2d 565 (Fla.3d DCA 1962).
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. Doris GUILLORY.

No. 61107.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1978.

In re: Doris Guillory applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of E. Baton Rouge.

Writ granted. Relator’s failure to appear in court was not a violation of La. Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 21. Ruling of the City Court holding relator in direct contempt of court is reversed and set aside.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., would deny.
# C_2023199EN.01000201.xml

| 7.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 1 June 2023

appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Ireland

(2023/C 199/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decision of 24 February 2022 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decision of 24 February 2022 (2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2025.

| (2) | The Government of Ireland has submitted a nomination for a post to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Government of Ireland has submitted a nomination for a post to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following person is hereby appointed member of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2025:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Member State | Member |
| --- | --- |
| Ireland | Ms Adrienne DUFF |

Member State

Member

Ireland

Ms Adrienne DUFF

Article 2

The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 1 June 2023.

For the Council

The President

A. CARLSON

---

(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 24 February 2022 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 92, 25.2.2022, p. 1).

2

---
(Reap. Dec. 9976)

#### New York Bead Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. ID 3092.

(Decided April 18, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*William B. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in the instant appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the entered value of the merchandise involved in the instant case is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at *661which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

In the incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centum, paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a *tona fide*buying commission that did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Janice A. SMOLDER, Appellant, v. FORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. II-317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1978.

*223Neal D. Evans, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Harry B. Mahon of Mahon, Mahon & Farley, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue before us is whether appellant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs in an action she brought against appellee for payment of an automobile loan under a credit life insurance policy. The trial court found that she was not, and in fact ordered her to pay appellee’s costs.

The record reveals that the creditor-beneficiary made a claim on the policy shortly following the death of appellant’s husband. Appellant instituted the suit after receiving a letter from appellee denying coverage under the policy. After certain discussions between the agent who had written the policy and appellee, appellee decided to pay the claim. There is no dispute that appellee issued its “claim draft” to the creditor before it received notice of appellant’s suit. It is also clear, however, that appellant did not receive word of the company’s decision to pay the claim before she brought her suit. Appellee’s agent testified that he called appellant’s home and left word of the company’s decision with her son or her babysitter but appellant denied receiving the message. The trial court made a specific finding of fact, not appealed, that appellant never actually received the message.

In view of this finding, we find no basis for the court’s denial of appellant’s costs and fees. It is clear that she was entitled to bring the suit in her individual capacity although she was not the primary beneficiary of the policy. *Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Palmer,*297 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). It is also settled that appellant was not required to wait 60 days after the proof of loss claim to bring the suit when the company denied coverage before that period expired. *Shuster v. New York Life Insurance Co.,*351 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Appellee invited appellant’s suit when it denied coverage under the policy. Although this decision was later changed, ap-pellee failed to effectively notify appellant that the claim would be paid before the institution of her suit. While the sequence of events may be unfortunate for appellee, we find no basis for requiring appellant to pay her own costs and fees resulting from appellee’s wrongful denial of coverage. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of appellant for her attorney’s fees and costs, including attorney’s fees for this appeal.

McCORD, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

MILLS, J., dissents.

MILLS, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s final judgment which I would adopt as the court’s opinion.
Compensation Letter between the Registrant and Mark P. Dentinger



 Exhibit 10.7 
  

			
	B E A Systems, Inc 	 	 2315 North First Street
 San Jose, California 95131

 Phone: 408.570.8000
 Fax: 408-570-8901


 

 
 March 22, 2006 
 Mark
Dentinger 
 2315 North First 
 St. San Jose, CA. 
 RE:    FY07 Compensation Awards 
 Dear Mark: 

I’m happy to advise that the Compensation Committee has approved the following FY07 Cash and Equity Rewards in recognition of your contributions over the last
fiscal year. 
 Base Salary and Bonus Potential 
 Effective May 1, 2006, your new annual base salary is $400,000, payable in accordance with our regular payroll cycle. This represents a 14.3% adjustment. Your On-Target-Earnings (OTE) is now $700,000 payable in accordance
with our FY07 Corporate Bonus Plan. The Plan Document for the FY07 Corporate Bonus Plan will be sent under separate cover, however, a modification to the plan includes an annual payout (from the previous semi-annual payout schedule) as well as an
MBO provision for Succession Planning. Please reference the Plan Document for specifics. 
 Equity 
 The Compensation Committee also approved the granting of 165,000 non-qualified stock options (standard 4 year vest) as well as 55,000 Restricted Stock
Units (RSU’s) with a 4 year vest. The options will be priced on the next Unanimous Written Consent at Fair Market Value and you will receive the option and RSU agreements under separate cover. 
 Mark, I deeply appreciate your contributions and look forward to FY07 with optimism and excitement. Thanks for all of your hard work! 
 Sincerely, 
 Alfred
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         Jurisdiction in
                  Name                                                                  which Incorporated
                  ----                                                                  ------------------
<S>                                                                                     <C>
HARTMARX CORPORATION (Registrant) ......................................................Delaware
         Consolidated Apparel Group, Inc................................................Delaware
         Coppley Apparel Group Limited .................................................Ontario, Canada
         Direct Route Marketing Corporation ............................................New Hampshire
         Hart Schaffner & Marx .........................................................New York

                  HMX Sportswear, Inc...................................................New York
                  National Clothing Company, Inc........................................New York

         Hickey-Freeman Co., Inc........................................................New York

         International Women's Apparel, Inc. ...........................................Texas
         Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (d/b/a Trans-Apparel Group) .................................Indiana

                  Anniston Sportswear Corporation ......................................Indiana

         Men's Quality Brands, Inc......................................................New York

         M. Wile & Company, Inc. (d/b/a HMX Tailored, Inc.) ............................New York
         Royal Shirt  Company Limited ..................................................Ontario, Canada

         Universal Design Group, Ltd....................................................New York
</TABLE>

         The names of 37 subsidiaries are omitted, as such subsidiaries,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary. The Registrant owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of the
voting securities of both the named and unnamed subsidiaries, except for one of
the unnamed subsidiaries, which is owned 50.1% by a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Registrant. All of the above subsidiaries (including unnamed subsidiaries)
are included in the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant and its
subsidiaries.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1319** 

JERMAINE BOLDEN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv
- 01265

- DKC )

Submitted : September 23, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jermaine Bolden, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Cantrell, MCCABE WEISBERG & CONWAY, LLC, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Bolden appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to reconsider and amend his complaint alleging violations of consumer protection laws **.** We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Bolden v. McCabe , No. 8:13

- cv
- 01265

- DKC (D. Md. Mar. 13 , 2014)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ada Louise DAMES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-703.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 8, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Robert L. Parks, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

*53PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged by information with the crime of second degree murder. She was tried before a jury in the criminal court of record in Dade County, found and adjudged guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years. Her motion for new trial was denied, and this appeal followed.

It was shown without dispute that the appellant shot and killed one Philip Giber-son. The evidence was in conflict as to the actions of the deceased toward the appellant in an altercation in the course of which the shooting occurred.

The appellant contends that on the version of the transaction as given in her testimony, the homicide was justifiable. We cannot agree. Moreover, the jury, as trier of the facts, was not required to accept the defendant’s testimony in that regard rather than the different evidence of the transaction which was in conflict therewith. In our opinion the verdict of manslaughter was supported by substantial competent evidence.

The court’s charge to the jury relating to two prior convictions of the appellant for misdemeanors did not constitute reversible error. In her testimony the defendant had revealed the prior convictions. The obvious purpose of the charge was to explain that such evidence goes to the credibility of the accused as a witness only and is not evidence as to guilt of the offense charged. The giving of the charge was appropriate in law, and we do not find that the wording thereof was prejudicial to the defendant.

The appellant argues that it was error for the court to charge on the lesser degrees of homicide when defendant requested that the court not so charge. The court did not commit error by charging on the lesser degree of the offense. The statute imposes a duty to so charge. Section 919.14 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See Brown v. State, Fla.1967, 206 So.2d *377.*Moreover, the state requested that the charge be given.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No. 333-07427, No. 333-62233, No. 333-116848, No. 333-133544 and No. 333-141887) on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 3, 2010, related to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of American Physicians Service Group, Inc. and the effectiveness of American Physicians Service Group, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Physicians Service Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas

March 3, 2010