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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 381

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a threefifths majority vote to pass any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or

conference report raising revenues.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1994

Mr. HEFLEY (for himself, Mr. BACHUS of Alabama, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANADY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. EMERSON, Mr.

GALLEGLY, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. HANSEN, Ms. DUNN, Mr. KING, Mr.

LIGHTFOOT, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MYERS of Indiana, Mr.

PORTMAN, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr.

TORKILDSEN, and Mr. LINDER) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require a three-fifths majority vote to pass any bill, joint

resolution, amendment, or conference report raising revenues.

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the

3 following new clause:

4 ‘‘8. Any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or con5 ference report that raises revenues may be approved in
2

•HRES 381 IH

1 the House only by an affirmative vote of at least three2 fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present.’’.

Æ
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, W. Wirt Culbertson, Tax Assessor of Metropolitan Dade County, et al., Appellants, v. CORAL GABLES POST NO. 98, the AMERICAN LEGION, INC., a non-profit corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
1

SkyViewHD ®

, 250 International Parkway, Suite 250, Lake Mary, FL 32746 Phone : 407

- 430

- 2271 │www.skyviewhd.com 

### GPS Development, LLC d/b/a SkyViewHD ® 250 International P ar kway Suite 250 Lake Mary, FL 32746

April 6, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation
Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave nue SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption s N umbers 11399 and 11399

- A

Dear Sir/Madam :

On April 20, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (“ FAA ”) granted GPS Development, LLC d/b/a S kyViewHD ® (“ SkyViewHD ”) with an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“ FARs ”)

- Exemption No. 11399, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0147

.

On July 10

, 2015, the FAA granted an amendment to Exemption No. 11399 which added additional Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“ UA S ” ) to the list of air craft SkyViewHD is permitted to fly

- Exemption No. 11399A

.

W ith this new Petition, SkyViewHD requests the opportunity to operate a ny UAS that ha s previously been approved by the Secretary of Transportation under Section 333 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 including any and all aircraft found on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 (the “ List ” ) . The L ist, which is updated monthly, is posted at www.regulations.gov under docket nu mber FAA

- 2007

- 3330

. SkyViewHD requests that it be authorized to operate any UAS on that list, including those add ed
to the List in future monthly updates to the List, when said U AS weigh s less than 55 pounds including payload . SkyViewHD requests the ability to operate these additional UASs for as long

a ny SkyViewHD exemption is valid

.2

SkyViewHD ®

, 250 International Parkway, Suite 250, Lake Mary, FL 32746 Phone : 407

- 430

- 2271 │www.skyviewhd.com SkyViewHD will continue to comply with all of the con ditions and limitations imposed in Exemption Nos

. 11399 and 11399

- A as well as any future exemptions granted to SkyViewHD

. Other than the ability to operate the additional UASs referenced above , there will be no change
in the co nditions and procedures relative to SkyViewHD’s operation of its UASs and the continued emphasis on public safety which were the basis for the initial grant s of Exemption Nos

. 11399 and 11399

- A

.

Due to the fact that the requested amendment includes UAS s which have already bee n approved by the FAA

, under docket nu mber FAA

- 2007

- 3330 , and will not set any precedent or otherwise raise any new issues, SkyViewHD respectfully requests the FAA to determine good cause exists to grant the requested amendment

.

SkyViewHD respectfully reques t s the FAA grant an amendment to the prior exemption as noted herein

.

Respectfully submitted

,

Philip A. K. Stiles, Esq.
President and General Counsel GPS Development, LLC d/b/a SkyViewHD
#### Donald SWANSON, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of his minor son, Donald Swanson, Jr., and Delores Swanson, his wife, v. George H. COMEAUX, as Father and Natural Guardian of his minor son, Steven Comeaux, et al.

No. 54249.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Donald Swanson, Sr. and his wife and children (through Their Father) applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 286 So.2d 117.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, a Missouri corporation, Petitioner, v. Trinidad GONZALEZ and Ida Gonzalez, his wife; 7100 Auto Sales, Inc., a Florida corporation; Dealers Paint and Body Shop, Inc., a Florida corporation; The Currey Corporation, a New York corporation; Richard Curtis Schilberg; James Edward Davis; and Gil Haas Insurance, Inc., a Florida corporation, Respondents.

No. 67-1045.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### JOSEPH ROBERTS *vs.*WILLIAM ROWAN & CO.

A *firm*cannot sue by its *style;*but must use the individual names of the partners.

Certiorari to Justice Wiley.

Record. William Rowan & Co. *vs.*Joseph Roberts, Esq. Summons issued I5th of June, 1836, returnable June 21st, 1836. Cause of action. For bill of store goods, (stating items,) $13 60. Summons returned “ served.personally,” and service proved. June 21st, 1830, the defendant not appearing, and the constable being solemnly sworn as to the service of the summons, judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $13 60, with costs of suit, &c.

Exceptions. 1st, Because it appears that the cause of action in this and the following case between the same parties, was a book account against the said J. Roberts, amounting to $33 86, for which entire sum but one action ought to have been brought; whereas, the justice has split the cause of action. 2d, Because the suit below is erroneous in not setting forth the names of the plaintiffs; the action being in the name of William Rowan & Co., whereas the names of the individuals composing the said firm ought to have been stated. 3d, To the service of the summons and return. 4th, Because the justice entered judgment by default without having first heard the proofs and allegations of the plaintiff.

Booth, for plaintiff in error.

*Wales,*for defendants.

*The Court*

said that the 2d and 4th exceptions were both fatal. The principle decided in *Cohsberry*vs. *Stoops*(1 *Harr.*448,) was, that where it appeared from the record that the proof and allegations were heard by the justice, it would be sufficient without his so stating. Here the justice sets out the cause of action, being an account, and which is the *allegation*of the plaintiff; but it does not appear that it was in any manner *proved,*even by the production and proof of his books. But the other ground is also fatal. A *firm,*cannot sue without setting out its members, and it is a good objection on the general issue, and need not be pleaded in abatement.

Judgment reversed.
#### Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, Insurance Carrier, Appellees, *v.*Allen Stolsky, Appellant.

Argued February 7, 1975,

before Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*Allen Stolsky,*appellant, for himself.

*John E. O’Connor,*Chief Counsel, State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, and *James N. Diefenderfer,*for appellees.

*368April 17, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The critical issue in this case is whether or not the claimant, Allen Stolsky, has sustained his burden of proving that he has suffered a 'disability due to an accident under the provisions of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act.1

The claimant had been employed for approximately thirteen years as an operator of computers and data processing equipment with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. In February of 1971 he was assigned to new equipment which apparently produced a higher noise level than the equipment which he previously operated. He claims that he then developed a ringing in his ears and that he now suffers a disability as a result of partially impaired hearing and hypersensitive ears. The referee concluded “that claimant has failed to prove the happening of an accident in the course of his employment within the meaning and definition of The Workmen’s Compensation Act.” The Board affirmed and this appeal followed. We affirm.

We have stated that “the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not provide benefits for a partial loss of hearing, unless the claimant proves a compensable accident.” *Hinkle v. H. J. Heinz Company,*7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 216, 225, 298 A.2d 632, 636 (1972). As we also said in *Hinkle,*an accident in a case such as this is established where the claimant has shown an unexpected definable event, or series of events, occuring under ordinary conditions of work, which caused a sudden onset of an unexpected pathological result. The claimant here, however, has failed to prove an unexpected occurrence at work, or that his condition was caused by some specific event. His medical testimony indicates at best that his loss of hear*369ing “might be related to the noise level.” Under our holding in *Hinkle,*this is clearly insufficient to meet his burden of proof. We, therefore, issue the following

Order

And, Now this 17th day of April, 1975, the decision and order of disallowance by The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board is hereby affirmed.

1

. Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, *as amended,*77 P.S. §1 et seq.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.45
Date:  7 - 9 - 97

Pursuant to that certain agreement executed on February 27, 1995, among the
undersigned parties hereto, under which AGA and AGI each undertook not to be
engaged in the other's exclusive field of use set forth in Annex "Y" attached to
that certain agreement, the parties hereby clarify that under the said Annex "Y"
the parties agreed that:

1.      AGA shall not be restricted from developing, manufacturing, marketing
        and selling stand-alone, low-vacuum systems for CVD applications in
        which none of the gasses involved is a silicone gas, or from developing,
        manufacturing, marketing and selling systems in batch configurations
        without any limitation as to process performed by such systems. The
        above activities shall be free for both AGA and AGI.

2.      AGA's field of use set forth in the above said Annex "Y" applies only to
        the following processes:

        a.      The annealing and reaction of metals and metal alloys with
                semiconductor surfaces.

        b.      The thermal formation and annealing of Metal Silicides and Metal
                Nitrides.

        c.      Oxidation, Nitridation and annealing of Single crystal and
                polysilicon.

        d.      Nitridation and annealing of previously grown or deposited
                undoped or doped oxides.

        e.      Annealing, activation and diffusion of doped species in
                semiconductors.

        f.      Annealing, reaction and activation of previously grown
                dielectric, ferroelectric and ferromagnetic films.

--------------                             -------------------
AG Associates, Inc.                        AG Associates (Israel) Ltd.

--------------                             --------------------
Clal Electronics Industries, Ltd.          Arnon Gat

                                           --------------------
                                           Rapro Technology Inc.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Annual Report of Global DECS Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Chaffee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of
2002, That to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


                                            /s/  Michael Chaffee
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Michael Chaffee
                                                 President
November 18, 2003
M art i n Robl es was t r i ed se parat el yfort he m urders of Jesus G onz al ezand John C om m i sk y . He was 1 fo u n d g u i l tyo f tw o c o u n ts o f c a p i ta l m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d to d e a th
. S e e R o b le s v. S ta te , 200 6 W L 10 96971 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . A pri l 26 , 20 06 ) ( no tde s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ).
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tracy LEWIS and Jimmy Sykes v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institute, C. Paul Phelps (Secretary), Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 62610.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Tracy Lewis and Jimmy Sykes, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied — wrong court.
<PAGE>   1
                                               EXHIBIT 11.1 TO FORM 10-K REPORT


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1



STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(dollars in millions except per share data)



                                                        YEAR ENDED
                                                     JANUARY 26, 1997

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net Income                                           $  57.9 

Weighted average                                     
shares outstanding (000's)                            82,554
                                                     -------

Primary E.P.S.                                               $ 0.70 
                                                             ======



FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net Income                                           $  57.9 

Weighted average
shares outstanding (000's)                            82,619
                                                     -------

Fully Diluted E.P.S.                                         $ 0.70 
                                                             ======
#### Albert ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert P. Davidow, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### ST. LANDRY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. Hal D. McBEE and Marilyn Sliman McBee.

No. 54193.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Florence Joseph Siiman, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 284 So.2d 155.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
House Calendar No. 191

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 492

[Report No. 103–623]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 208) to

Park Service, and for other purposes.reform the concessions policies of the National

JULY 27, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 191

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 492

[Report No. 103–623]

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 208) to reform the concessions

policies of the National Park Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1994

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (S. 208) to reform the concessions policies

6 of the National Park Service, and for other purposes. The

7 first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of

8 order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply

9 with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of
2

HRES 492 RH

1 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

2 bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con3 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

4 the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate

5 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five6 minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original

7 bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

8 rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute rec9 ommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now

10 printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in

11 the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this

12 resolution. Each section of the committee amendment in

13 the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be considered

14 as read. Points of order against the committee amendment

15 in the nature of a substitute, as modified, for failure to

16 comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the

17 conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

18 Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

19 such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

20 may demand a separate vote in the House on any amend21 ment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill

22 or to the committee amendment in the nature of a sub23 stitute, as modified. The previous question shall be consid24 ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
3

HRES 492 RH

1 final passage without intervening motion except one mo2 tion to recommit with or without instructions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      652
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                         61
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   809
<PP&E>                                          10,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,556
<BONDS>                                          1,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,400
<OTHER-SE>                                         477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,169
<SALES>                                          2,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,513
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                       418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       600
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 395 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 143

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 395

                          [Report No. 103-449]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and 
                             prevent crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 22, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 143
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 395

                          [Report No. 103-449]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and 
                             prevent crime.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 1994

   Mr. Derrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and 
                             prevent crime.

    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. 4092) to control and 
prevent crime. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
waived. 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 Committee on the Judiciary. After 
general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No 
further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to 
a subsequent order of the House. The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule 
XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with 
respect to a resolution reported on or before the legislative day of 
March 23, 1994, providing for further consideration or disposition of 
the bill.
```