alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 468

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 19, 1994.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1995 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government, the Community Management

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and

Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on
2

Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title

rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read.

Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule

XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment

to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule

XXIII before its consideration. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the bill to the House with such amendments as may

have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote

in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee

of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
H. R. 843

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To withdraw certain lands located in the Coronado National Forest from the mining

and mineral leasing laws of the United States, 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. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cave Creek Canyon Protection

Act of 1993’’.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS WITHIN CAVE CREEK CANYON

DRAINAGE.

(a) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, after the

date of enactment of this Act lands within the Cave Creek Canyon

Drainage are withdrawn from entry, location, or patent under the

general mining laws, the operation of the mineral and geothermal

leasing laws and the mineral material disposal laws. (b) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Cave

Creek Canyon Drainage’’ means lands and interest in lands owned

by the United States within the area depicted on the map of

record entitled ‘‘Cave Creek Mineral Withdrawal’’, dated November 1, 1991. The map shall be on file and available for public

inspection in the offices of the Forest Service, Department of

Agriculture.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# C_2022002EN.01001201.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against HM (C-428/21 PPU), TZ (C-429/21 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-428/21 PPU and C-429/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 27(3)(g) and Article 27(4) - Request for consent for prosecution for offences other than those on which surrender was based - Article 28(3) - Request for consent for subsequent surrender of the person concerned to another Member State - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection - Right of the person concerned to be heard by the executing judicial authority - Procedures)

(2022/C 2/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

HM (C-428/21 PPU), TZ (C-429/21 PPU)

Intervener: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(3)(g), Article 27(4) and Article 28(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has been surrendered to the issuing judicial authority in execution of a European arrest warrant has the right to be heard by the executing judicial authority where that latter authority has received a request for consent from the issuing judicial authority under those provisions of that framework decision; that hearing may take place in the issuing Member State, the judicial authorities of that State being required in that case to ensure that the right to be heard of the person concerned is exercised effectively, without the direct participation of the executing judicial authority. However, it is for the executing judicial authority to ensure that it possesses sufficient information, in particular as regards the position of the person concerned, to enable it to take its decision with full knowledge of the facts — and in full compliance with the rights of the defence of that person — in relation to the request for consent made under Article 27(4) or Article 28(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, and to request, if necessary, that the issuing judicial authority provide it as a matter of urgency with supplementary information.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---
#### Garnett FEASTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction of robbery for which he was sentenced to serve twenty-five years imprisonment.

On September 2, 1971, Fla.App., 251 So.2d 907, we affirmed the judgment appealed upon the ground that the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties indicated that no reversible error was committed in arriving at said judgment. This opinion was set aside and held for naught by our sua sponte Order dated January 6, 1972, as it appeared that the Office of the Public Defender had failed to comply with our Order of July 12, 1971, requiring the Public Defender to furnish the appellant with a copy of the record on appeal and granting appellant leave to file a supplemental brief within 30 days if he so desired.

It now appearing by certificate that the complete record on appeal has been forwarded to appellant and that the 30 day period within which appellant was granted leave to file a supplemental brief has expired, our prior disposition of this case is reinstated and the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and JOHNSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
#### Donald Wayne WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
255 La. 344

#### Miss Darleen JACOBS v. Diane MARINO, wife of/and Andrew Marino, Jr.

No. 50367.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 1970.

In re: Miss Darleen Jacobs applying for writs of review, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
## RHONDA BARCHAK DISTRICT CLERK BRAZORIA COUNT Y

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT ON APPEAL
9/2/2015

TO: FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

RE: Cause No. 61922, in the 300th District Court
Style; DON WEIDO VS BRANDY M. WEIDO

****** ********************************

CASE INFORMATION:

DATE OF APPEALABLE ORDER/JUDGMENT: 8/10/15 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 9/2/15 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL: N/A ORDER OVERRULING MOT N/T N/A REQUEST FOR FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED: NO REQUEST FOR CLERK’S RECORD: NO REQUEST FOR REPORTERS RECORD FILED: NO METHOD OF DELIVERY: TAMES PORTAL JUDGE PRESIDING: K. RANDALL HUFSTET LER COURT REPORTER: RENEE RAPE

***************************************

APPELLANT: BRANDY MICHELLE W EIDO MEYER

ATTORNEY(S) FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT P. MCCONNELL TEL.: 713-533-3800 FAX: 713-533-3888 EMAIL ADDRESS: bmcconnell@olsonllp.com TEXAS BAR NO.: 13448300 979-864-1316 979-388-1316 281-756-1316 111 E. Locust, Suite. 500 Angleton, TX 77515

www.brazoria-county.com1 NO. 61922

IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § C. A. W. § 300th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § A CHILD § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Respondent, Mother and Joint Managing Conservator, Brandy Michelle Wei do Meyer
(formerly known as Brandy M. Weido) files this Notice stating her intention to appeal the trial

court’s Final Judgment titled Clarification Order in Suit to Modify Parent- Child Relationship,
signed August 10, 2015 in the 300th Judicial District Court of Brazoria C ounty. This appeal will
be filed in and sought from either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas.

Respectfully submitted,
______/s/ Robert P. McConnell _______ ROBERT P. MCCONNELL State Bar No. 13448300 Olson and Olson L.L.P. 2727 Allen Parkway, Suite 600 Tel: (713) 533-3800 Fax: (713) 533-388 Email: bmcconnell@olsonllp.com

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT Filed for Record 9/2/2015 11:11:04 AM Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk Brazoria County, Texas 61922 Jennifer Torres, Deputy2 Certificate of Service
I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the 2 nd day of September, 2015, upon the following counsel of record:

James R. Hedlesten KETTERMAN, HEDLESTEN & AMANN, PLLC The Isis Building 1004 Prairie, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77002 Fax: 713-652-2002 Email: James@khalawyers.com
______/s/ Robert P. McConnell _______ ROBERT P. MCCONNELL
#### Karl HOFFPAUIR et al. v. CITY OF CROWLEY et al. Carl G. HENRY v. CITY OF CROWLEY et al.

No. 54173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: City of Crowley, La., Arnold J. Gielen, Gerald J. Cradeur, Jos. S. Gueno, Jr. and John E. Gibson applying for certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 284 So.2d 114, 284 So.2d 116.

Writ denied. No error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal..
#### Edward FISCHBEIN, Appellant, v. DAVID JENKINS ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, and David Jenkins, individually, Appellees.

No. 71-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, Natalie Baskin, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Kneale, Roberts, Kneale, Starkweather & Henderson, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

Edward Fischbein, who is the appellant here, was the plaintiff in the trial court. He brought an independent action to be relieved from a prior judgment. The judgment appealed dismissed appellant’s amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to motion of the appellee. The language of appellant’s original complaint and, to some extent, of the amended complaint, is somewhat misleading in that each complaint is entitled, “An action for Damages.” Nevertheless, the amended complaint con*86tains a specific prayer for . . relief pursuant to rule 1.540, 31 F.S.A., which permits an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, . . The ground alleged for relief is the ground set forth in the stated rule at (b) (3), “Fraud . misrepresentation . . . of an adverse party; . . The complaint alleges upon its face dates which, if correct, would bring an action within the time limited by the rule.

The order dismissing the complaint sets forth the ground that the complaint fails on its face to state a cause of action. Appellee in argument before this court urges that the complaint was properly dismissed because it was barred as res ju-dicata. The amended complaint is not on its face subject to this defense. We need not therefore pursue the matter further except to note that a plea of res judicata is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 248; Braz v. Professional Insurance Corp., Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 594. Of course this appeal does not encompass a holding as to either the applicability or merits of such a plea if properly made in this cause.

It is next urged that the trial court correctly dismissed the cause because of a failure to set forth the fraud with sufficient particularity. We find that the complaint alleges the making of an affidavit by the adverse parties which was knowingly and falsely made. The complaint further alleges that the false affidavit was a basis for the summary final judgment entered in the prior action. Kut-ner v. Kalish, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 763. We think that if these charges are proved they are sufficient for relief authorized by rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
#### GULF STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. George G. WRIGHT, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-568.

District Court oí Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 7, 1972.

William C. Ballard, of Baynard, McLeod, Lang & Eckert, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Charles J. Cheves, Jr., of Hazen, Is-phording, Hazen & Cheves, P. A., Venice, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the respective parties and find that the judgment- appealed is supported by competent substantial evidence. The appellant having failed to show reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Revised preamble 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 11/15/2012 04:43 PM 

 Cc: RobertJ Wayland 

 

Cortney -- 

Attached are the revised MATS proposed reconsideration preamble and a 

redline/strikeout of that version vs. the version you have. 

Thanks. 

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Proposal_20121115.pdf 

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Proposal_redline_20121106 vs 20121115.pdf 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
#### CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, Inc. v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. CO.

No. 38425.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
INDEX TO EXHIBITS


10.1   Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement 4(2) Program between Global Marine
       Inc., as Issuer, and Merrill Lynch Money Markets Inc., as Dealer,
       dated as of July 27, 1999.

10.2   Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement 4(2) Program between Global Marine
       Inc., as Issuer, and Goldman, Sachs & Co., as Dealer, dated as of
       July 27, 1999.

10.3   Resolution dated August 11, 1999, regarding Directors' Fees and
       Expense Reimbursement.

10.4   Resolution dated August 11, 1999, regarding Termination of Retirement
       Plan for Outside Directors.

15.1   Letter of Independent Accountants regarding Awareness of Incorporation
       by Reference.

27.1   Financial Data Schedule.  (Exhibit 27.1 is being submitted as an
       exhibit only in the electronic format of this Quarterly Report on
       Form 10-Q being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
       Exhibit 27.1 shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11
       of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
       Act of 1934, or Section 323 of the Trust Indenture Act, or otherwise
       be subject to the liabilities of such sections, nor shall it be deemed
       a part of any registration statement to which it relates.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10462 Summary Calendar

REYNALDO T. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION , Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-1724-Y

-------------------- July 12, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo T. Rodriguez, Texas inmate #835093, moves for a certificate of appealability from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for lack of exhaustion of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The motion for COA is DENIED AS MOOT because Rodriguez did not timely file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). We are without jurisdictionNo. 01-10462. -2- over the appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. COA DENIED AS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       10,647
<SECURITIES>                                 12,915
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             21,174
<PP&E>                                        3,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                  666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               27,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,567
<BONDS>                                       1,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          7
<OTHER-SE>                                   19,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 27,836
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6,121
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             23,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (19,146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (19,146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (19,146)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (2.69)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (2.69)
<FN>
<F1> EPS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
02/14/11 . r^ARTMENTOF 

\oPpR;miON 

To: U.S. Department of Transportation ' v}ri:RATIONS 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. - 1 FfiB ?2 P 2 20 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

From: Coastal Helicopters, LLC 

Lawrence Ihie 

PO Box 715 

Nags Head, NC 27959 

Office Phone: 252-475-4354/Fax; 252-441-9066 

Email: obxhelicopters@gmail.com 

To whom it may concern, 

We are requesting an exemption from needing to maintain two alcohol and drug 

prevention programs. We have a small FAR 135, 'On Demand', charter operation and a 

Part 91 air tour operation, both under the same company name, Coastal Helicopters, 

LLC. We have one aircraft arxi one pilot. The situation of having two separate drug 

programs gives the pilot the possibility of being randomly selected for testing for both 

operations at the same time. It as well more than doubles the expense to the company 

to maintain both programs. Because we are a small operation, this amounts to a 

finar>cial hardship to us. 

By allowing us to maintain a single drug and alcohol prevention program, I fc>elieve this 

will still meet the intended goals of the Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program and 

monitoring for the FAA. 

I am therefore requesting that an exemption be granted, allowing us to have our single 

pilot in one Alcohol and Drug PreverYtion program. 

Our Part 135 charter operatiorw cert'rficate number is 9COA719M. Our Part 91 air tour 

operations certificate numt>er is LIHJAW95. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime at the following: 

Cell 252-928-8074. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. 

Lawrence Ihle 

Coastal Helicopters. LLC
#### Janis T. ROUSSELL v. LOUISIANA HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, New Orleans, La.

No. 61815.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 28, 1978.

In re: Janis T. Roussell, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Civil Service Commission.

Writ granted. Judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed. Plaintiffs appeal before the Louisiana Civil Service Commission is reinstated.

SUMMERS, J., dissents.
#### Raymond CLOUD, Appellant, v. SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF SHELBY, OHIO, Appellee.

No. 69-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 14, 1970.

Horton & Schwartz, Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for appellant.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause recurs for consideration pursuant to the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida entered May 20, 1970 (237 So.2d 763), now lodged in this court. By our prior decision, Cloud v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. of Shelby, Ohio, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 911, this appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In accord with the directive of the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, our prior opinion and judgment is vacated and set aside, this appeal is hereby reinstated, the order entered by the trial court in this cause dated October 17, 1969, setting aside summary final judgment, etc., is hereby quashed, nunc pro tunc, and this appeal shall proceed in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.

The record on appeal shall be filed in the trial court on or before September 15, 1970 and appellant’s brief shall be filed and served within 20 days thereafter.