alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


          <ARTICLE> UT
          <CIK> 0000053456
          <NAME> JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
          <MULTIPLIER> 1,000
          <CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
                 
          <S>                              <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1996
          <PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1996
          <PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1996
          <EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
          <BOOK-VALUE>                        PER-BOOK
          <TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          2,932,079
          <OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          354,656
          <TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>               444,911
          <TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>             983,637
          <OTHER-ASSETS>                             0
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     4,715,283
          <COMMON>                             153,713
          <CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            510,769
          <RETAINED-EARNINGS>                  829,256
          <TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     1,493,738
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                239,000  <F1>
          <PREFERRED>                           37,741
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               1,137,225
          <SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                    32,000
          <LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                  0
          <COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        70,134
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>         55,884
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>             10,000
          <CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>            1,275
          <LEASES-CURRENT>                      99,281
          <OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     1,539,005
          <TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      4,715,283
          <GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          1,583,432
          <INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  56,560
          <OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         1,328,309
          <TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         1,384,869
          <OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              198,563
          <OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     3,667
          <INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       202,230
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              79,834  <F2>
          <NET-INCOME>                         122,396
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            9,910
          <EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        112,486
          <COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             100,000  <F3>
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>             90,102
          <CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               223,006
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                              0
          <EPS-DILUTED>                              0
          <FN>
          <F1> INCLUDES COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
          <F1> SECURITIES OF $125,000.
          <F2> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
          <F2> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $8,025.
          <F3> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
          </FN>
                  <PAGE>

</TABLE>
# C_2020114EN.01001802.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/18

---

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — Laubender (medical beauty research)

(Case T-98/20)

(2020/C 114/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘medical beauty research’ — EU trade mark No 4 215 935

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 114/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Laubender GmbH, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Laubender GmbH, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 216 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 64

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 216

                          [Report No. 103-166]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2118) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 30, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 64
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 216

                          [Report No. 103-166]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2118) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2118) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2118) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1993, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
```
#### Henri Ola ROGERS et al., Complainants-Appellants, v. Clifton ROGERS et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 47362.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 14, 1974.

*464P. O. Gibson, Jr., Jackson, for appellants.

W. E. McIntyre, Brandon, for appellees.

PATTERSON, Justice:

The complainants, appellants here, filed a cloud suit in the Chancery Court of Rankin County against several defendants, one of whom was the Farmers Home Administration. The United States demurred to the bill of complaint upon the basis that the Farmers Home Administration was not an agency subject to suit in the state court absent express authorization by the United States. Incorporated within the demurrer was the title to the appropriate section of the United States Code which designates the means by which the United States can be named a party in a title suit in a state court.

The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill of complaint with prejudice. This dismissal precipitated the filing of numerous motions and pleas spanning three terms of court. We have reduced the various pleadings to their common denominator in an endeavor to discern the issue before the Court. We conclude it to be: Are the complainants entitled to amend their bill of complaint so that the United States may be properly designated as a defendant to the suit ?

We are of the opinion the lower court correctly determined the United States to be a necessary party to the suit, but erred in dismissing the bill with prejudice and in refusing to permit the amendment to be made properly designating the United States as a defendant. In Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, section 311 (2d Ed. 1950), we note this pronouncement:

> The whole rule in this respect is expressed thus: It is not the duty of the chancellor on sustaining a demurrer to inquire whether the party desires to amend, or to insert such leave voluntarily. If such leave is desired the party should and must apply for it, otherwise the order is properly a dismissal. In making such order of dismissal if the demurrer be a general one going to the substance of the bill the dismissal is without reservation; if the demurrer is special going to some formal matter the dismissal should be without prejudice.

> 

*See also*Alexander v. Moye, 38 Miss. 640 (1860).

The demurrer of the United States did not challenge the substance of the bill and upon being sustained the subsequent dismissal of the bill of complaint should have been without prejudice so that an appropriate amendment might have been made upon motion therefor.

Reversed and remanded.

RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 234/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.234.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 234 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5613 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.234.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 234

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5613 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 234/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 234/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 234/02 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 234/02

Euro exchange rates

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 234/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6989 — Aqualia/Mitsui/Severomoravksé vodovody a kanalizace Ostrava/Aqualia Infraestructuras Inzenyring) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 234/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6989 — Aqualia/Mitsui/Severomoravksé vodovody a kanalizace Ostrava/Aqualia Infraestructuras Inzenyring) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AKI ENTERTAINMENT, INCORPORATED,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. No. 99-1633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-98-3956-JFM)

Submitted: February 8, 2000

Decided: February 28, 2000

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terrance G. Reed, Christopher A. Hostage, REED & HOSTAGE,

P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

AKI Entertainment, Inc., appeals from the district court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction AKI's challenge to the

Drug Enforcement Administration's intent to forfeit currency seized

from its employee, Maceo Delmontrai Belt. AKI asserted that it did

not receive notice of the forfeiture. The district court dismissed the

action because the administrative forfeiture proceedings were pending.

The district court does not have jurisdiction to address claims of

ownership of property during the pendency of administrative forfeiture proceedings. See Ibarra v. United States , 120 F.3d 472, 474-76

(4th Cir. 1997). "[O]nce the administrative forfeiture is completed,

district courts retain jurisdiction to review the forfeiture to determine

compliance with due process and procedural requirements." Id. at 474

n.4 (emphasis added). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed

AKI's claim for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order dismissing this action. We express no opinion as to

the adequacy of the notice of forfeiture given to AKI. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
#### JACK THOMAS, INC., Appellant, v. John PITZ, Appellee.

No. 70-1127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mrs. Florence Cologne Marse PEOPLES and James Peoples v. Mrs. Proclair Severas MARSE.

No. 54123.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Mrs. Florence Cologne Marse Peoples and James Peoples applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. No error of law in the judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 311 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 311

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 17, 1993.
    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. 3450) to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement. 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 proceed 
without intervening motion, shall be confined to the bill, and shall not exceed 
eight hours, with two hours for debate in favor of the bill controlled by 
Representative Rostenkowski of Illinois or a designee, two hours for debate in 
opposition to the bill controlled by Representative Gephardt of Missouri or a 
designee, two hours for debate in favor of the bill controlled by Representative 
Michel of Illinois or a designee, and two hours for debate in opposition to the 
bill controlled by Representative Solomon of New York or a designee. Pursuant to 
section 151(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, after general debate the Committee 
shall rise and report the bill to the House. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of 
the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill to final passage without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                         Clerk.
```
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 750 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.750
                       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 extend the Export Administration Act of 1979 and to authorize 
appropriations

             under that Act for fiscal years 1993 and 1994.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 18 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
2417) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Department of Commerce to carry out the purposes of this Act--
        ``(1) $42,813,000 for the fiscal year 1993;
        ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 1994; 
    and
        ``(3) such additional amounts, for each such fiscal year, as may 
    be necessary for increases in salary, pay, retirement, other 
    employee benefits authorized by law, and other nondiscretionary 
    costs.''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE ACT.

    Section 20 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
2419) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1990'' and inserting ``June 
30, 1994''.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
Robert H. Baldwin
  President
                            B E L L A G I O

September 1, 1999



Mr. Stephen A. Wynn
Chairman of the Board and
  Chief Executive Officer
Mirage Resorts, Incorporated
3600 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, Nevada  89109

Re:  Amendment No. 5 to Fine Art Rental Agreement

Dear Steve:

Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the letter agreement dated December 31, 1998
between Bellagio and you (the "Rental Agreement"), this letter confirms
our agreement that, effective this date, the following work of fine art
shall be added to  Exhibit A to  the Rental Agreement for the following
monthly rent:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             Work                                      Monthly Rent
     ----------------------------------                ------------
     <S>                                                  <C>
     "Still Life  with Curtain, Pitcher                   $83,333
     and Bowl of Fruit" by Paul Cezanne
     (ca. 1893-1894, oil on canvas,
     23-1/2 x 28-3/4 inches)

</TABLE>
Please  sign  below to  confirm  your agreement to  the  foregoing.  My
signature below confirms Bellagio's agreement thereto.

Very truly yours,

BELLAGIO                               I hereby agree to the foregoing.


By:  ROBERT H. BALDWIN                 STEPHEN A. WYNN
     ---------------------------       --------------------------------
     ROBERT H. BALDWIN                 STEPHEN A. WYNN
     President and Chief
     Executive Officer

cc:  Bruce A. Levin
     George J. Panek
     James E. Pettis
     Peter C. Walsh

               P.O. BOX 7700, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89177-7700

                              Exhibit 10.2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Marquesha Williams v. 16303 Imperial LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00914

- CV

Trial court case number: 1143136

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On December 10, 2019, this Court granted appellant’s motion to stay and requested a

response from appellee. Appellee filed a response on December 19, 2019.

After consideration of the response, the Court withdraws the grant of appellan t’s motion

and withdraws the order staying the eviction. The motion to stay is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Richar d H ightower

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 3, 2020
<PAGE>


                                                                      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 Technology Visions Group, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
A. Giansiracusa, Chief Accounting 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:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 3(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.



                               /s/ J. A. Giansiracusa
                               ------------------------
                               J. A. Giansiracusa
                               Chief Accounting Officer
                               April 15, 2005


<PAGE>
#### Timothy WOULARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.