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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 140

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require printing 
       in the Congressional Record of certain travel by Members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 1993

 Mr. Duncan submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require printing 
       in the Congressional Record of certain travel by Members.

    Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
amended by adding at the end the following new rule:

                              ``Rule LIV.

``public disclosure of certain information respecting travel by members

    ``1. (a) Except as provided by clause 2, within 30 calendar days 
before the commencement of any travel being paid for with appropriated 
funds, a Member shall have published in the Congressional Record the 
following information respecting that travel--
            ``(1) the daily itinerary;
            ``(2) the purpose of the trip; and
            ``(3) the estimated costs of transportation, meals, and 
        lodging, if any.
    ``(b) If any staff (including personal, committee, or subcommittee 
staff) or Member's spouse is travelling with appropriated funds, then 
that Member shall provide the same information to the Congressional 
Record at the same time as the information is provided for his travel.
    ``2. Clause 1 shall not apply to travel between Washington, D.C. 
and the Member's district or within the Member's district.''.

                                 <all>
```
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 180

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide certain

qualifications pertaining to service as a Member, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1993

Mr. DORNAN of California submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

provide certain qualifications pertaining to service as a

Member, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representa2 tives are amended by adding at the end thereof the follow3 ing new rule:

4 ‘‘RULE .

5 ‘‘LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF TERMS OF MEMBERS.

6 ‘‘1. No person may serve any term or portion thereof

7 as a Member if such person has served as a Member for

8 each of the five terms immediately preceding such term.
2

HRES 180 IH

1 ‘‘2. For purposes of this rule, service as a Member

2 in any term which commences before 1993 may not be

3 included in determining the number of terms served.

4 ‘‘3. This rule may only be amended or repealed by

5 a recorded vote.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 989 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 989

    To provide that the State Health Insurance Program of Hawaii is 
   eligible for reimbursement from certain funds appropriated to the 
    Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

  Mrs. Mink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide that the State Health Insurance Program of Hawaii is 
   eligible for reimbursement from certain funds appropriated to the 
    Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. HAWAII STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, expenses incurred over 
the 12-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act by 
the State of Hawaii for operating its State Health Insurance Program 
(SHIP) shall be eligible for reimbursement from funds appropriated to 
the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund under Public Law 
102-366 and under subsequent appropriations Acts.

                                 <all>
```
#### RAMBUS v WAYNE COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL (ON REHEARING)

Docket No. 120118.

Submitted November 12, 1991, at Detroit.

Decided December 21, 1992, at 9:05 a.m.

Leave to appeal sought.

Shirley Rambus, as personal representative of the estate of Reuben Rambus, deceased, brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Wayne County General Hospital and Dr. Howard Liss, alleging medical malpractice as a result of Dr. Liss’ treatment of Mr. Rambus while he was a patient at the hospital. Dr. Liss was an employee of a private entity under contract with the hospital to provide certain medical and related services. The court, Thomas J. Foley, J., granted Dr. Liss’ motion for summary disposition, finding that he was an agent of the hospital and, because the hospital was a governmental institution, was entitled to immunity from tort liability. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Weaver, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Marilyn Kelly, JJ., reversed and remanded, finding that Dr. Liss was not entitled to governmental immunity. 193 Mich App 268 (1992). Dr. Liss’ motion for rehearing on the basis of the Supreme Court’s reversal of *Douglas v Pontiac General Hosp,*182 Mich App 446 (1990), rev’d 438 Mich 851 (1991), a case cited by the Court of Appeals in its previous opinion, was granted.

On rehearing, the Court of Appeals *held:*

The authority cited in the Court’s previous opinion in this case, especially *Roberts v Pontiac,*176 Mich App 572 (1989), but excluding *Douglas,*supports the holding set forth in the prior opinion.

The trial court’s order granting summary disposition for Dr. Liss is reversed and the case is remanded.

*Thurswell, Chayet & Weiner*(by *Cyril V. Weiner),*for the plaintiff.

*Cheatham & Acker, P.C.*(by *Kevin P. Hanbury),*for Dr. Howard Liss.

*481ON REHEARING

Before: Weaver, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Marilyn Kelly, JJ.

Michael J. Kelly, J.

This case was previously submitted to this panel. The issue we addressed was whether Dr. Howard Liss (hereinafter defendant), as an employee of a private corporation doing business with the defendant hospital, was an independent contractor and, therefore, not entitled to governmental immunity. Our opinion, decided March 16, 1992, *Rambus v Wayne Co General Hosp,*193 Mich App 268; 483 NW2d 455 (1992), reversed the trial court’s order of summary disposition in favor of Dr. Liss.

Defendant’s timely motion for rehearing on the basis of the Supreme Court’s reversal of *Douglas v Pontiac General Hosp,*182 Mich App 446; 452 NW2d 845 (1990),1 was granted.

We have reviewed this matter in light of the reversal of *Douglas,*and, on the basis of the authority cited in our previous opinion in this case, especially *Roberts v Pontiac,*176 Mich App 572; 440 NW2d 55 (1989), but excluding *Douglas,*we reaffirm the holding set forth in our prior opinion in this matter.

Reversed and remanded.

1

438 Mich 851 (1991).
#### BROWN *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 36,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided December 13, 1962.*

Before Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Marbury, JJ.

*630Pee Curiam.

Application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief is denied for the reasons set out in the elaborate and complete opinion of Judge Manley in the court below.
#### Earnest COLLINS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5904.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 18, 1967.

William K. Howell, Jr., Winter Haven, and Thomas W. Perkins, of Kirkland & Perkins, Auburndale, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In the above stated cause the judgment of the Trial Court was on March IS, 1967, reversed by this Court, Acting Chief Judge Pierce writing an opinion of reversal, Judge Hobson concurring in the conclusion only, and Associate Judge Driver dissen;.i’-|n' with opinion. Thereafter, upon petition for cer-tiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, on July 12, 1967, reported in 201 So.2d 225, entered Order pointing out that the reversal by this Court was “without a majority opinion setting forth the reasons therefor”, and requesting this Court to “prepare and adopt a majority opinion setting forth the theory and reasoning upon which the judgment of reversal” was based. Jurisdiction was temporarily relinquished to this Court for such purpose with directions that the cause be then returned to the Supreme Court for “further review.”

Pursuant to such directions, a majority of the panel of this Court originally sitting in consideration of the cause upon appeal have agreed upon a majority opinion of reversal by deleting from the original opinion of Judge Pierce appearing in 197 So.2d beginning at page 574, that portion thereof beginning with the words “Confirmation of the soundness of our decision here * * * ” appearing on page 587 of said volume, and ending with the words “ ‘ * * * until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned’ ”, being the conclusion of a quotation taken from the so-called Miranda case, appearing on page 588 of said volume, deleting also footnote 14 of said opinion, and renumbering footnote 15 to read footnote 14. As so deleted and modified, said opinion is hereby now adopted as the majority opinion of this Court.

A copy of this Memorandum Order, certified by the Clerk of this Court, shall be forthwith forwarded to the Supreme Court of Florida as per previous directions.

PIERCE, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.

DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge

(dissenting).

For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in this cause, as reported in 197 So. 2d beginning at page 588,1 dissent from this majority opinion of reversal but in doing so concur in that part of this Memorandum which deletes the described portions of the original majority opinion reported in 197 So.2d 574, supra.
1 The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3695

___________ Richard E. Walbaum, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 2010 Filed: July 23, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Richard Walbaum appeals the tax court’s 1 dismissal of his petition challenging notices of deficiency for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2006. Walbaum argues that the tax court erred by refusing to accept his corr ected tax returns, and by not shifting the burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the IRS Commissioner; he also asserts several tax-protestor arguments. The Co mmissioner has moved for sanctions against Walbaum.-2- After careful de novo review, see Norwood v. Dickey , 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review standard); Campbell v. Comm’r , 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir. 1999) (taxpayer bears burden of provi ng that Commissioner’s determination was erroneous), we conclude th at the dismissal of Walbaum’s petition was proper for the reasons stated by the tax court. We fu rther conclude that the tax court was not required to shift the burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the Commissioner,
see Scherping v. Comm’r , 747 F.2d 478, 480 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (in deficiency actions Commissioner’s determin ation is presumed correct, and petitioner bears burden to prove otherwise); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (describing circumstances where burden shifts), and th at the tax-protestor arguments raised by Walbaum are frivolous, see United States v. Gerads , 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (we have rejected, on numerous occasions, tax-protestor argument that federal income tax is unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned; wages are within definition of income under Internal Revenue Code and Sixteenth Amendment, and are s ubject to taxation); United States v. Latham , 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985) (argument that category “employee” in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) does not include privately employed wage earners is “preposterous” reading of statute); Denison v. Comm’r , 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting as frivolous taxpayer’s arguments that wages we re not income and that Internal Revenue Code was unconstitutional).
Regarding the motion for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we conclude that Walbau m has filed a frivolous appeal and that sanctions are appropriate. See Gerads , 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting government’s motion for sanctions where appellant brought frivolous appeal based on tax-protester argument).-3- Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $5000.00.

______________________________
#### Edward Ray HOPPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41108.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 17, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Ray UPTAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-3677

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 29,1977.

Jerry A. Kirby, Monroe, La. (Court-Appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Donald E. Walter, U. S. Atty., Dosite H. Perkins, Jr., Brian P. Joffrion, Asst. U. S. Attys., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Terry Ray Uptain, was indicted for wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, arising out of his scheme to defraud *1108Van T. and Zelda H. Bates of nearly $4000. He promised to deliver 260 eases of “The Living End,” a “rectal cleaning agent,” though he never did. The jury found him guilty on both counts, and he was sentenced to five years in prison on each count, sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.

Appellant brings forward four points, none of which have any merit. He claims that the trial judge should have granted a judgment of acquittal because use of the wires was never proved; that the testimony of several witnesses was erroneously admitted; that the court should have granted £ mistrial after accepting the testimony of George T. Wilson; and that the court should not have admitted evidence of a tape procured by an Agent which allegedly was one of Uptain’s sales pitches.

First, the government clearly proved all elements establishing appellant’s violation of the statute, including the use of the wires. Second, the testimony of the other witnesses, stating that similar acts of conduct had been perpetrated by the appellant, were admissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to show knowledge, intent, and a consistent pattern and scheme of operation. The trial judge made the proper limiting instructions. Third, the witness’ comment that the president of a company was in jail for bank robbery was completely unpredicted by both sides. Any prejudicial effect was minimal, and the judge used limiting instructions. Finally, the cassette tape was found in an abandoned office, and thus, appellant cannot complain of its seizure. *Abel v. United States,*362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). Further, the tape was useful in establishing the requisite fraudulent intent.

Accordingly we AFFIRM.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                    Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     I, Robert Panico, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and
its subsidiaries for the periods presented.


Date:  November 10, 2006                    /s/  Robert Panico
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Robert Panico
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Conrad J. WEISGERBER v. Mrs. Gaynell Babin WEISGERBER, and the Honorable Thomas J. Leblanc, Clerk of Court For the Eighteenth Judicial District and Ex-Officio Recorder of Mortgages For the Parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

No. 53151.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Mrs. Gaynell Babin Weisgerber applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of West Baton Rouge. 270 So.2d 313.

Application denied. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
#### J. C. HARDY, Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., and Southern Sanitation Service, Inc., Respondents.

No. 41959.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 27, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 254 So.2d 865.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

ACCOUNTANT’S REVIEW REPORT 

 

Shareholders 

Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Frisch’s Restaurants,Inc. (an Ohio Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 12, 2004, the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the twelve and twenty-eight week periods then ended. These financial statements arethe responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our reviewin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of personsresponsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expressionof an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of May 30, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders’equity and cash flows for the year then ended and in our report dated July 7, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

 

GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

January 5, 2005
# C_2020255EN.01002901.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/29

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case T-362/20)

(2020/C 255/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acciona, SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agencia Negociadora PB, SL (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Word mark REACCIONA — European Union trade mark No 8 605 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 652/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---