alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 275

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 19, 1993.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report and amendments reported from conference in disagreement on the bill

(H.R. 2491) making appropriations for the Departments of

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and

for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of order against

the conference report are waived. The conference report,

amendments in disagreement, and motions printed in the

joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference to

dispose of amendments in disagreement shall be considered

as read. It shall be in order, any rule of the House to the

contrary notwithstanding, to consider a motion offered by

Representative Stokes of Ohio or a designee that the House

recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate

numbered 113 and concur therein with the amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution. That motion shall be debat-
2

HRES 275 EH

able for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on that motion to final adoption without

intervening motion.

SEC. 2. The amendment of the House to the amendment

of the Senate numbered 113 is as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: ‘‘: Provided further, That, pursuant to Public Law 102–

486, an amount equal to not more than 50 percent of all utility energy efficiency and water conservation cash rebates received by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

may be made available for additional energy efficiency and

water conservation measures, including facility surveys: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act to

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be

available for other than termination costs of the advanced

solid rocket motor program.

‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the

amounts appropriated in this Act for fiscal year 1994 shall

be: $4,853,500,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration ‘Space flight, control and data communications’, $517,700,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration ‘Construction of facilities’, $7,529,300,000

for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ‘Research and development’, $1,480,853,000 for the Environ-
3

HRES 275 EH

mental Protection Agency ‘Hazardous substance superfund’,

$1,998,500,000 for the National Science Foundation ‘Research and related activities’, and $110,000,000 for the National Science Foundation ‘Academic research infrastructure’ ’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 31
                         Certification

I, Douglas O. Hart, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of the MBNA Master Credit
Card Trust II;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under
the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and based upon my knowledge
and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
that is included in these reports.

Date:  September 21, 2004


/s/ Douglas O. Hart
Douglas O. Hart
Senior Executive Vice President
# C_2017107EN.01000101.xml

| 5.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8308 — Munksjö/Ahlstrom II)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 107/01)

On 13 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8308. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8308. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Phillip LONG, David Wood, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John VAN de KAMP, Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-55834.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 1992.

Decided April 7, 1992.

*152Robert David Breton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Phillip Long, in pro per.

Before: HUG and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM, Senior District Judge.*

*

 Hon. Robert F. Peckham, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The facts are stated in the district court’s opinion which is reported at 772 F.Supp. 1141 (C.D.Cal.1991). The district court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment did not stand as a bar to its jurisdiction over this case. *Id.*at 1143. However, under *Ex parte Young,*209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), there must be a connection between the official sued and enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional statute, and there must be a threat of enforcement. We doubt that the general supervisory powers of the California Attorney General are sufficient to establish the connection with enforcement required by *Ex parte Young. See Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Brown,*651 F.2d 613, 614 (9th Cir.1981) (as amended) (Oregon Attorney General’s power to direct and advise, which was not binding on district attorneys who had independent duty to enforce state law, was not sufficiently connected with enforcement). Moreover, there is no threat that Cal.Vehicle Code § 2805(a) will be enforced by the Attorney General. Absent a real likelihood that the state official will employ his supervisory powers against plaintiffs’ interests, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction.

The lack of threatened enforcement by the Attorney General also means that the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III is not satisfied. The Attorney General has not in any way indicated that he intends to enforce section 2805(a). In addition, the searches of plaintiffs’ premises were not the result of any action attributable or traceable to the Attorney General. Consequently, an injunction against the Attorney General will not forestall such future searches of plaintiffs’ property because there is no indication that the Attorney General intends to pursue, or encourage local law enforcement agencies to pursue, such searches under section 2805(a). *See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org.,*426 U.S. 26, 38-41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924-26, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss this case.

*153We find Judge Wilson’s well-reasoned examination of the Fourth Amendment issue persuasive, but given our resolution of the Eleventh Amendment issue we do not reach the Fourth Amendment issue.

VACATED and REMANDED.
[No. 314-2.

Division Two.

February 22, 1972.]

#### Wesley D. Ikenberry, *Respondent,*v. Benjamin Weisberg *et al., Appellants.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the Burnet Municipal Airport, Burnet, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request To Release Airport Property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the Burnet Municipal Airport under the provisions of 
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for 
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas 
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. David Vaughn, Asst. City Manager, at the 
following address: P.O. Box 1369, 1001 Buchanan Drive, Suite 4, Burnet, 
Texas 78611.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Cooks, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, 
ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Telephone: 
(817) 222-5608. E-mail: Steven.Cooks@faa.gov. Fax: (817) 222-5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Burnet Municipal Airport under the 
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Burnet requests the release of 4.407 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. A portion of the land was acquired by 
imminent domain in 1959 as part of the original 79.31 acres and the 
remaining portion was acquired in 1982. The property to be released 
will be sold to allow for a new public safety facility. The proposed 
facility will include police, fire, and EMS services which will benefit 
general aviation by establishing immediate security and safety services 
to all areas of the airport and greatly improve the quality and 
availability of these services to the entire community. Any person may 
inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
Burnet Municipal Airport, telephone number (512) 756-6655.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on February 29, 2011.
Kelvin Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-8297 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138000 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138000 

 COA: 286184 

Wayne CC: 03-011413-FC; 

CHARLES EDWARD TAYLOR, 03-013048; 03-013047 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 197.

#### The Arkansas River Gas Company *v.*Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.

Motion to. dismiss submitted October- 5, 1925.

Decided October 12, 1925.

*Messrs. Joseph S. Clark*and *Thomas C. Wilson*for plaintiff in error, in. opposition thereto.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of *Erie R. R.*v. *Purdy,*185 U. S. 148; *Layton*v. *Missouri,*187 U. S. 356; *Louisville & Nashville R. R.*v. *Woodford,*234 U. S. 46, 51. *Mr. I. N. Williams*for defendants in error, in support of the motion.
#### The STATE of Florida on the relation of CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, a municipal corporation, et al., Relators, v. Honorable Francis X. KNUCK, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-1227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### FRANCIS HIMESWORTH, d. b. app’t. *vs.*EDWARD EDWARDS, plaintiff below.

A contract with an overseer to work land for a part of the proceeds, is not within the statute of frauds.

A lease for a year may be by paroi.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action of assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment, discount and set-off.

The plaintiff’s case was, that he hired defendant, as a laborer, to cultivate his farm, at a compensation of one-half the grain and produce raised. The farm was not rented to him. He went on the farm in 1819. The corn raised in 1850 was nine hundred bushels; Edwards received, only about four hundred bushels. In 1851 the crop of wheat was six hundred and seventy-one bushels; Edwards received only two hundred and ninety-nine bushels. The action was, therefore, for the value of one hundred bushels of corn and thirty-six and a half bushels of wheat.

*Mr. Rodney*

objected to the proof of any contract between Edwards and Himesworth, for the occupation- of these lands, unless it was by deed. It is not a case of demise, as between landlord and tenant; that is repudiated; the narr. is on a special contract to pay and deliver one-half the product of the land, which was to be cultivated by the defendant. Where the contract authorizes an occupation of the land, it is within the statute of frauds. (56 *Law Lib.,*49; *Smith on Contracts.)*

*377Rodney, for plaintiff.

*Johnson,*for defendant.

*Mr.*Johnson.

The plaintiff’s case repudiates any idea of conveying or contracting for any interest in land. We present a case of hiring an overseer to be paid by a share of the produce. This is not a contract within the statute of frauds. Even a renting by the year might, under our landlord and tenant law, be made by paroi. Whether, therefore, we prove a case of hiring at such a share of the grain, all of which the defendant delivered at market, and delivered none to us : or prove a case of renting by the year, on an agreement to pay us one-half, our case is good on paroi proof.

But the main count in our declaration and the strength of our case, is for money had and received to our use, this overseer having sold all the grain, and paid us not one-half.

*Mr. Rodney*

replied. He argued that a contract of tenancy might be made, concerning land, without deed, but this relation of landlord and tenant was repudiated, and yet an attempt was made to prove a contract, which carried an interest in land, and which could not be proved without writing.

*The Court*

ruled—1. That a contract with a person to cultivate a farm, as an overseer or working hand, and to be compensated by a certain amount of the proceeds of the crop, is not a contract conveying an interest in land, and is not within the statute of frauds. It may be proved by paroi. j

2. That a contract of renting for a year, though respecting an interest in the land, is excepted by the act concerning landlords and tenants, and may be made by paroi.

3. That the pro narr. in this case, embraced either or both of these cases; and there was added a count for money had and received for the plaintiff’s use, under which be might recover, if the proof sustained it.
#### Richard J. ALBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAWALI KHAN,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 08-1101 (JDB)

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

 Respondents.

ORDER

Pursuant to today's status conference held in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that

respondents shall file a status report -- in writing and by not later than September 25, 2009 --

informing the Court whether they intend to seek leave to amend the factual return in this case. 

The Court has taken notice of petitioner's motion for discovery and of respondents' agreement to

produce the requested information to the extent possible within thirty days. It is further

ORDERED that a status conference will be held in this case on October 7, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 8.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Date: August 26, 2009
#### Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Company, Respondent, *v.*John Sternon, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1911.)

Municipal Courts — Review — Judgments, And orders reviewable: Order to amend name of defendant: Order denying motion for reargument.

Neither an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York granting plaintiff’s motion to amend the name of the defendant, nor an order denying defendant’s motion for a reargument, is appealable.

Appeal by the defendant from, an-order of the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, borough of Manhattan, -fifth district.

Strauss & Singer, for appellant.

Jacob S. Katzman, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal from an order granting the motion of the plaintiff to amend the name of the defendant and also from an order denying defendant’s motion for a reargument. Neither of these orders is appealable. Lyons v. Mulvihill, 128 N. Y. Supp. 653.

Appeal dismissed with ten dollars costs.

Present: Seabury, Guy and Cohalan, JJ.

Appeal dismissed.
#### PENTECOSTAL HOLINESS CHURCH, a South Carolina corporation, Appellant, v. Floyd M. MAUNEY and Connie L. Mauney, his wife, and The Florida Conference of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 8, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended April 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John L. Cutter, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Paul V. Hoagland, as Executive Vice President of Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | By:                                                                                                           |   | /s/ JOHN L. CUTTER    |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Name: John L. Cutter                                                                                          |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President (PrincipalExecutive Officer)                                     |
|   | Date: May 4, 2006                                                                                             |
|   |                                                                                                          |
|   |                                                                                                          |
|   | By:                                                                                                           |   | /s/  PAUL V. HOAGLAND |   |
|   | Name:  Paul V. Hoagland                                                                                       |
|   | Title: Executive Vice President  of Administration and Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|   | Date: May 4, 2006                                                                                             |
|        |                                                                                                               |        |                       |        |  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>				  5
<MULTIPLIER>			       1000
       
<S>				<C>		        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>			9-MOS		        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>		FEB-28-1998		FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>			 MAR-1-1997		AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>			NOV-29-1997		NOV-29-1997
<CASH>				       3592		       3592
<SECURITIES>				  0		          0
<RECEIVABLES>			       3347		       3347
<ALLOWANCES>				 27		         27
<INVENTORY>			       4682		       4682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>		      12493		      12493
<PP&E>				      14194		      14194
<DEPRECIATION>			       8409		       8409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>			      19079		      19079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>		       4445		       4445
<BONDS>				          0		          0
<COMMON>				 17		         17
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			  0		          0
<PREFERRED>				  0		          0
<OTHER-SE>			      13209		      13209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	      19079		      19079
<SALES>				      15097		       4622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		      15097		       4622
<CGS>				       9903		       3072
<TOTAL-COSTS>			       4369		       1308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>		        (33)		        (11)
<LOSS-PROVISION>			  0		          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			 94		         22
<INCOME-PRETAX>			        764		        231
<INCOME-TAX>				 61		         13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			703		        218
<DISCONTINUED>				953		          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				  0		          0
<CHANGES>				  0		          0
<NET-INCOME>			       1656		        218
<EPS-PRIMARY>			       1.35		       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>			       1.35		       0.17