alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DWS VARIABLE SERIES I

   SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED PORTFOLIO:

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

                             DWS Capital Growth VIP


The following information replaces information in "The Portfolio's Main
Investment Strategy" section of the portfolio's prospectuses:

The portfolio seeks to provide long-term growth of capital.

The portfolio normally invests at least 65% of total assets in equities, mainly
common stocks of US companies. Although the portfolio can invest in companies of
any size, it intends to invest primarily in companies whose market
capitalizations are similar in size to the companies in the Standard & Poor's
500(R) Composite Stock Price Index (the "S&P 500 Index") or the Russell 1000(R)
Growth Index (as of December 31, 2008, the S&P 500 Index and the Russell 1000(R)
Growth Index had median market capitalizations of $6.4 billion and $3.3 billion,
respectively). The portfolio may also invest in other types of equity
securities, such as preferred stocks or convertible securities.

In choosing stocks, the portfolio managers begin by utilizing a proprietary
quantitative model to rank stocks based on a number of factors including
valuation and profitability. The portfolio managers also apply fundamental
techniques to identify companies that display above-average earnings growth
compared to other companies and that have strong product lines, effective
management and leadership positions within core markets. The factors considered
and models used by the portfolio managers may change over time.

The portfolio managers will normally sell a stock when they believe its
potential risks have increased, its price is unlikely to go higher, its
fundamental factors have changed, other investments offer better opportunities
or in the course of adjusting the portfolio's emphasis on a given industry.













               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference




                                                                     [Logo]DWS
                                                                   INVESTMENTS
                                                           Deutsche Bank Group
March 4, 2009
VS-3620
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-703

IN RE NATHAN V. HOFFMAN

2021 DDN 65

An Administratively Suspended Member 

of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 420588

BEFORE: Thompson* and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED— January 27, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of California suspending 

respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of four years, 

stayed in favor of a three-year suspension with reinstatement contingent on 

satisfying the conditions imposed and establishing fitness; this court’s October 29, 

2021, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing 

him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement 

of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests this court impose reciprocal discipline 

with an additional condition that reinstatement also be conditioned on respondent 

first being reinstated by the state of California; and it appearing that respondent has 

not filed any responses or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that Nathan V. Hoffman is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in this jurisdiction for a period of four years, stayed in favor of a three-year 

suspension with reinstatement contingent on his reinstatement to practice law by the 

state of California and a showing of fitness. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 

(D.C. 2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C. 2006) (rebuttable 

presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the 

respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). It is
No. 21-BG-703

2

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s 

suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). 

 

PER CURIAM

*Judge Thompson’s term expired on September 4, 2021; however, she will continue to 

serve as an Associate Judge until her successor is confirmed. See D.C. Code § 11-1502 (2012 

Repl.). She was qualified and appointed on October 4, 2021, to perform judicial duties as a Senior 

Judge and will begin her service as a Senior Judge on a date to be determined after her successor 

is appointed and qualifies.
# L_2005303EN.01006001.xml

| 22.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 303/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 303/60

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2005/806/CFSP

of 21 November 2005

implementing Joint Action 2005/557/CFSP on the European Union civilian-military supporting action to the African Union mission in the Darfur region of Sudan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/557/CFSP of 18 July 2005 on the European Union civilian-military supporting action to the African Union mission in the Darfur region of Sudan (1), and in particular Article 8(1), second subparagraph thereof, in conjunction with Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Council has in accordance with Article 15 of Joint Action 2005/557/CFSP decided to continue the European Union civilian-military supporting action to the African Union mission in the Darfur region of Sudan. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Council has in accordance with Article 15 of Joint Action 2005/557/CFSP decided to continue the European Union civilian-military supporting action to the African Union mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.

| (2) | As concerns the civilian component the Council should consequently decide on the reference amount for the continuation of the supporting action. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As concerns the civilian component the Council should consequently decide on the reference amount for the continuation of the supporting action.

| (3) | The EU supporting action to the AMIS II will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the CFSP as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The EU supporting action to the AMIS II will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the CFSP as set out in Article 11 of the Treaty,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the implementation of Section II of Joint Action 2005/557/CFSP from 29 January until 28 July 2006 shall be EUR 2 200 000.

2.   The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the European Community procedures and rules applicable to the budget, with the exception that any pre-financing shall not remain the property of the Community. Nationals of third states shall be allowed to tender for contracts.

Article 2

The Council shall no later than 30 June 2006 evaluate whether the EU supporting action should be continued.

Article 3

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

The expenditure shall be eligible from 29 January 2006.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 November 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. STRAW

---

(1)  
  OJ L 188, 20.7.2005, p. 46.

1

---
#### Peter Anthony ZELINSKI et al., Appellants, v. PUROLATOR COURIER CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 77-603, 77-776.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Rossman & Baumberger, Miami, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, appellants urge, among other things, that the trial court improperly charged the jury and that the jury verdict was not supported by the evidence.

Although the standard jury instructions were not used, the trial judge’s own jury instructions fairly and adequately covered all issues and instructed the jury as to its duties in the trial. We find no error in this regard.

The evidence in the record supports the jury verdict. *See Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority v. Espinosa,*344 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Thompson v. Jacobs,*314 So.2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Appellants’ other arguments are deemed without merit. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.
# L_2005342EN.01009901.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 342/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 342/99

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 23 December 2005

on the continuation in the year 2006 of Community comparative trials and tests on propagating material of Paeonia spp. and Geranium spp. under Council Directive 98/56/EC started in 2005

(2005/945/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants (1),

Having regard to Commission Decision 2005/2/EC of 27 December 2004 setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on propagating material of certain species under Council Directive 98/56/EC for the years 2005 and 2006 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Decision 2005/2/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Directive 98/56/EC as regards Paeonia spp. and Geranium spp. for 2005 and 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Decision 2005/2/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Directive 98/56/EC as regards Paeonia spp. and Geranium spp. for 2005 and 2006.

| (2) | Tests and trials carried out in 2005 should be continued in 2006, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Tests and trials carried out in 2005 should be continued in 2006,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Community comparative trials and tests which began in 2005 on propagating material of Paeonia spp. and Geranium spp. shall be continued in 2006 in accordance with Decision 2005/2/EC.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 226, 13.8.1998, p. 16. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/61/EC (OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 23).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 1, 4.1.2005, p. 12.

2

---
No. 00-7026.

#### Kirkner *v.*Wilson et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Willie B. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-826.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY, and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Jeffers v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 552.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3499 

To provide emergency acquisition authority for purposes of replenishing 

United States stockpiles. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide emergency acquisition authority for purposes of 

replenishing United States stockpiles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing American Ac5 quisitions, Readiness, and Military Stockpiles Act of 

6 2023’’ or the ‘‘Securing American ARMS Act of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY ACQUISITION AUTHORITY. 

8 Section 3601(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 

2 

•S 3499 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) with respect to an armed attack by a 

8 country of concern (as defined in section 1(m) 

9 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act 

10 of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(m)), to which the 

11 United States is not a party, for purposes of— 

12 ‘‘(i) replenishing United States stock13 piles of defense articles when such stock14 piles are diminished as a result of the 

15 United States providing defense articles in 

16 response to such armed attack by a coun17 try of concern against— 

18 ‘‘(I) a United States ally (as that 

19 term is defined in section 201(d) of 

20 the Act of December 2, 1942, titled 

21 ‘To provide benefits for the injury, 

22 disability, death, or enemy detention 

23 of employees of contractors with the 

24 United States, and for other purposes’ 

3 

•S 3499 IS

1 (56 Stat. 1028, chapter 668; 42 

2 U.S.C. 1711(d))); or 

3 ‘‘(II) a United States partner; or 

4 ‘‘(ii) contracting for the movement or 

5 delivery of defense articles transferred to 

6 such ally or partner through the Presi7 dent’s drawdown authorities under sections 

8 506(a)(1) and 614 of the Foreign Assist9 ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1) 

10 and 2364) in connection with such re11 sponse.’’. 

Æ
#### Page *v.*Lytle, Appellant.

*Appeals*— Assignments *of error*— Equity *practice.*

1. On appeal to the Supreme or Superior Court in an equity suit such matters only as have been excepted to and finally passed on by the court are assignable in error.

*Appraisement*— Interested *appraiser*— Waiver.

*2.*Where one of the parties to an agreement for the appointment of appraisers to value lands knew at the time of the appointment of an appraiser that he was the agent of the other parties and understood fully his relation to them and acquiesced in his appointment, he must be held to have waived any objection to the appointment.

Argued May 18, 1910.

Appeal, No. 87, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Blair Co., Equity Docket D, No. 639, directing defendant to accept deed and pay consideration in case of Fannie L. Page, Florence L. Ormsby and Caroline Ormsby v. Edward H. Lytle.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, •Mestrezat, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

. Bill for specific performance of agreement for the division of land. Before Bell, P. J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Errors assigned*were in findings and refusals to find and decree of the court.

*J. D. Hicks*and *A. V. Dively,*with them *D. J. Neff,*for appellant.

*H. A. Davis,*for appellee.

*199July 1, 1910:

Per Curiam,

The bill in this case was for the specific performance of an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant for the division of lands devised to them. The first assignment of error is the only one that is supported by the record. The other assignments relate to matters not excepted to in the common pleas and they cannot be considered. The rules of equity practice provide for the filing of exceptions to a decree nisi that shall cover all objections to rulings on evidence, findings of fact or law and to the decree of the court. Rule 67 is: “Upon appeal to the Supreme or Superior Court such matters only as have been so excepted to and finally passed on by the court, shall be assignable for error.” The rules are mandatory and their violation cannot be overlooked: Beatty v. Harris, 205 Pa. 377.

The first assignment relates to the refusal of the court to find that one of the appraisers appointed by agreement of the parties to value the lands was incompetent to act because he represented the plaintiff's as agent and attorney in fact. The court in passing on the exception on which this assignment is based found as a fact that the defendant at the time of the appointment of the appraiser referred to, knew that he was the agent of the plaintiffs and understood fully his relation to them and acquiesced in his appointment. The defendant having acted with knowledge of facts that might tend to influence the judgment of this appraiser must be held to have waived any objection to the appointment.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 333]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3581]]

Public Law 111-333
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, Massachusetts, as 
   the ``Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic 
              Site''. <<NOTE: Dec. 22, 2010 -  [S. 1405]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site Designation 
Act. 16 USC 461 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Longfellow House-Washington's 
Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act''.
SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF LONGFELLOW NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, 
                    MASSACHUSETTS.

    (a) In General.--The Longfellow National Historic Site in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as ``Longfellow House-
Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Longfellow National 
Historic Site shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Longfellow 
House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site''.

    Approved December 22, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1405:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 111-141 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            May 7, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 14, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Ronald I. STRAUSS, Respondent.

No. 71-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 27, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Gary S. Brooks, Asst. County Atty., for petitioner.

Ronald I. Strauss, Miami, for respondent.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ., and MANN, ROBERT T., Associate Judge.

MANN, ROBERT T., Associate Judge.

When the Public Defender withdrew, Strauss was appointed to represent Celona. A fee for his services was set at $10,000.00. Dade County filed in this court Case No. 70-1139, a petition for writ of certiorari to review the fee award. This court granted certiorari and quashed that order. Dade County v. Strauss, Case No. 70-1139, 246 So.2d 137, opinion filed March 16, 1971. While that matter was pending here, Strauss moved in the Criminal Court of Record in the matter of State v. Celona, the original criminal proceeding, for a fee in connection with Case No. 70-1139. Judge Stedman, prior to leaving office, ordered Dade County to pay Strauss $1,500.00 “out *242of the fine and forfeiture fund, for legal services rendered in Case No. 70-1139 in the District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District”. This petition for cer-tiorari seeks to review that order.

Fla.Stat. § 27.53, F.S.A., is intended to facilitate legal services for the indigent accused, not his solvent counsel. Strauss’ services in Case No. 70-1139 are on behalf of Strauss, not Celona. There is no authority for paying Strauss from public funds for defending his trial fee against an arguable claim by the county that it should not be paid. ■

Certiorari is granted, and the challenged order is quashed.

It is so ordered.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HARRISON J. BREAULT, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-211 Erie

v. )

)

SUPER, WAKEFIELD, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on July 28, 2005,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12], filed on

August 4, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be denied and that a certificate

of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and on

Respondents. Objections were filed by Petitioner on August 30, 2006 [Doc. No. 14]. 

After novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report

and Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 7th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 4, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00211-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Legend Natural Gas III, LP; 

Legend Natural Gas, LLC; 

Lewis Energy Group, LP; and 

Lewis Petro Properties, /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 15, 2015

No. 04-14-00899-CV

Laura Leticia Zepeda VASQUEZ, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham 

Vasquez,Jr.,

Appellant

v.

LEGEND NATURAL GAS III, LP; Legend Natural Gas, LLC; Lewis Energy Group, LP; and 

Lewis Petro Properties, Inc,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-07-00119-CVL

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On December 23, 2014, this court ordered appellants to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order the appellants sought to appeal 

was a non-appealable interlocutory order. On January 8, 2015, appellants filed a response stating 

the trial court signed a new order on January 5, 2015, disposing of all parties and causes of 

action. Also on January 8, 2015, appellants filed an amended notice of appeal in response to the 

January 5, 2015 order. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the order entered on January 5, 

2015 was filed in this court on January 14, 2015. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is 

RETAINED on the docket of this court. The reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no 

later than March 6, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court