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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 797

To extend the existing suspension of duty on metal oxide varistors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. SHAW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To extend the existing suspension of duty on metal oxide

varistors.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF

4 DUTY

5 Heading 9902.85.33 (relating to metal oxide

6 varistors) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Unit7 ed States is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘12/31/97’’.
2

HR 797 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies only to

3 metal oxide varistors weighing less than 2.5 kilograms,

4 (provided for in subheading 8533.40.00.)

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 The amendment made by section 1 applies to goods

7 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

8 after December 31, 1992.

Æ
#### PAYNTER SHORT *vs.*THE STATE.

In bastardy cases the general character of the prosecutrix for chastity may be inquired into.

A question may be pul to a witness tending to criminate him, but he is not obliged to answer.

Sussex,

October term, 1845.

Appeal in bastardy.

The State proved the paternity of the child, by the mother, and closed.

Witnesses were called by the defendant, to impeach the character of the mother for chastity, and also to prove her intercourse with other men at or about the time.

The attorney general desired to inform these witnesses that they were not required to answer any question which tended to criminate themselves.

*The Court*

said that this lqd to a question of some difficulty, which had been discussed in a case heretofore tried in this court; in which the decision was, that the question might be put to a witness whether he had had connection with the complainant, but that he was not bound to answer it; if he chose to protect himself under a claim of privilege. (4 *T. Rep.*440; 1 *M. & M.*108; *Arch. Cr. Law*102; 1 *Phill. Ev.*269, 223; *Ros. Evid.*97.)

The court also permitted questions to be put and answered, as to the general character of the prosecutrix for chastity.
#### CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. Effie Russell HUMPHREY et al.

No. 54237.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: Effie Russell Humphrey and Doyle E. Humphrey applying for Certiora-ri, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish o'f Caddo. 286 So.2d 668.

Application not considered — Not timely filed.
Office of Civil Rights

Findings of Discrimination

FY 2024 1st Quarter

Pursuant to the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020

Date of 

Finding

Agency Date(s) Discrimination 

Occurred

Law Violated

2/2/2023 GSA 10/9/2019 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS: This Notice also informs all employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of the 

rights and protections available to them under Section 201 of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 

Retaliation Act of 2002, as amended (No FEAR Act), Federal Antidiscrimination Laws, and Whistleblower Protection Laws. Please 

see the No FEAR Act Notice at the following link for more information: No Fear Act
257 La. 860

#### Burice C. BIHM v. A. Lambert VOORHIES et al.

No. 51166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1971.

In re: Burice C. Bihm applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 241 So.2d 915.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,297,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,300
<INVENTORY>                                     21,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,376,200
<PP&E>                                       4,780,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,840,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,581,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,473,800
<BONDS>                                        889,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     21,200
<COMMON>                                       585,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,581,800
<SALES>                                      1,253,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,253,900
<CGS>                                          454,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  933,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                274,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   107,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            167,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   167,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

No. 40827.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Rule 1.191 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. was adopted by this court as an emergency matter “until further order of this court.” In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 245 So.2d 33 (Fla.1971).

Upon consideration, Rule 1.191 (i) (2) is amended to read:

Rule 1.191 — SPEEDY TRIAL.

> ifc i}C íjí ^ j{c ^

> (1) Schedule.

> * íjí * * * *

> (2) The trial of all persons taken into custody prior to the effective date of this rule shall commence on or before September 27, 1971, unless a written demand for speedy trial is made. Upon such demand trial shall commence within sixty days from service of such demand upon the prosecuting attorney. If a person is released upon bail or otherwise, and makes no demand for speedy trial, the trial of such person shall commence on or before November 1, 1971.

This amendment shall not affect the rights of any person heretofore discharged.

Because of the emergency presently existing, this rule is effective immediately and a petition for rehearing will not be allowed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT:

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DE HUMIDIFIERS, AND COOKING PRODUCTS, AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

November 2007

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficien cy and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercia l Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy and by staff members of Navigant Consulting, Inc.

and

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Be rkeley National Laboratory
Exhibit 31.4



Certification



I, C. Alex Estevez, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report amendment on Form 10-K/A of Datastream Systems, Inc.;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual report amendment does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report amendment;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    C. ALEX ESTEVEZ                                          
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                 
|                     |  |  |  | C. Alex Estevez Chief Financial Officer Datastream Systems, Inc.
#### Thomas Francis FRENCH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42942.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 51.

CARLTON, C. J, and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
#### J. W. CASON, Jr. v. J. M. BRASHER et al.

No. 53181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1973.

In re: J. W. Cason, Jr. applying for certi-orari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 270 So.2d 315.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 213

Providing for savings in the operations of the House of Representatives

to be achieved by transferring functions to private sector entities and

eliminating staff positions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1993

Mr. SANTORUM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing for savings in the operations of the House of

Representatives to be achieved by transferring functions

to private sector entities and eliminating staff positions.

1 Resolved, That, not later than the end of the One

2 Hundred Third Congress, the Speaker shall take such ac3 tion as may be necessary to transfer the activities and en4 tities listed in section 2 to the private sector in order to

5 achieve the annual cost savings and staff reductions speci6 fied in such section, which amount to annual cost savings

7 of $10,212,737 (estimated) and staff reductions of 566

8 positions.
2

•HRES 213 IH

1 SEC. 2. The activities, entities, annual cost savings,

2 and staff reductions referred to in the first section are

3 as follows:

4 (1) House Restaurant System, annual cost sav5 ing: $1,800,000, staff reduction: 220 positions (esti6 mated).

7 (2) House Post Office, annual cost saving:

8 $3,900,000, staff reduction: 160 positions.

9 (3) Barbershop, annual cost saving: $160,737,

10 staff reduction: 7 positions.

11 (4) Beauty Shop, annual cost saving: $252,000,

12 staff reduction: 11 positions.

Æ
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Washington, DC 20405

ADM 5450.172
May 15, 2017

GSA DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: Delegation of the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program to the Chief
Information Officer (CIO)

1. Purpose. This Order designates to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) the authority
to act on behalf of the Administrator of General Services in managing the Controlled
Unclassified Information (CUI) Program.

2. Background.

a. Executive Order 13556, dated November 4, 2010, established the CUI Program
within the executive branch.

b. The CUI implementing directive, 32 C.F.R. Part 2002 Controlled Unclassified
Information, directs agency heads to ensure agency senior leadership support, and
make adequate resources available to implement, manage, and comply with the CUI
Program. Agency heads are also directed to designate a CUI senior agency official
(SAO) responsible for oversight of the agency's CUI Program implementation,
compliance, and management.

3. Delegation of authority. Effective immediately, the GSA CIO is delegated the
authority to manage the CUI Program at GSA. This authority may be further delegated
to an Associate CIO.

4. Implementing actions. The GSA CIO shall take actions necessary to implement this
delegation. The Chief Human Capital Officer, in conjunction with other appropriate
Officials, shall take necessary steps to update the GSA Delegations of Authority Manual,
ADM P 5450.39D, Chapter 9, to reflect this delegation of authority.

5. Signature.

Outly B pene

TIMOTHY O. HORNE
Acting Administrator
#### Robert A. KELLY and Lavonne Kelly, Appellants, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, etc., Appellees.

No. 73-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
256 La. 868

#### Rene MARES and Joe Mares v. LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION.

No. 50789.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 236 So.2d 650.

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

McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 974 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 974

   To eliminate any salary adjustment for Members of Congress under 
  section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, in 
                           fiscal year 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

Mr. Gutierrez (for himself, Ms. Shepherd, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
  Fingerhut, Mr. Deal, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Baesler, and Ms. Woolsey) 
   introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 
  Committees on House Administration and Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To eliminate any salary adjustment for Members of Congress under 
  section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, in 
                           fiscal year 1994.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That no rate of pay 
referred to in paragraph (1) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) shall be adjusted to reflect 
any increase which, but for this Act, would take effect under paragraph 
(2) of such section 601(a) in fiscal year 1994.

                                 <all>
```
# Vendor Resources

The following resources are offered for current vendors or those wishing to sell off a GSA Schedule.

## Getting on a GSA Schedule

Industry partners should consider the following resources to learn how to be successful under the GSA Schedules program:
                        - Current Schedule Contractors ;
                        - Getting Started With GSA Schedules ;
                        - Marketing to the Federal Government ;
                        - MAS Modification Help Center ;
                        - Roadmap for New Schedule Offerors ; and
                        - Training Resources .

## Current vendor support

The GSA Vendor Support Center is available for for new and existing industry partners. The VSC maintains a staff ready to assist vendors in the preparation and submission of electronic catalog files to GSA *Advantage!*®, and in the submission and reporting of sales data. Vendors may contact the VSC staff Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, at 877-495-4849, or via email at vendor.support@gsa.gov. Information is available online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Human capital-  Overview 
-  Training for Human Capital 
-  E-Tools 
-  Customer Resources 
-  Vendor Resources 
-  Human Capital and Training Solutions
House Calendar No. 103

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 279

[Report No. 103–301]

RESOLUTION

Relating to the consideration of amendments reand for other purposes. for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, Department of the Interior and related agencies bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the ported from conference in disagreement on the

OCTOBER 19, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 103

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 279

[Report No. 103–301]

Relating to the consideration of amendments reported from conference in

disagreement on the bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the

Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 1993

Mr. GORDON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Relating to the consideration of amendments reported from

conference in disagreement on the bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior

and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1994, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during the consideration of amend2 ments reported from conference in disagreement on the

3 bill (H.R. 2520) making appropriations for the Depart4 ment of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal

5 year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes,
2

HRES 279 RH

1 motions printed in the joint explanatory statement of the

2 committee of conference to dispose of amendments in dis3 agreement, and the motion printed in section 2 of this res4 olution, shall be considered as read. Points of order under

5 clause 7 of rule XVI against the motions printed in the

6 joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference

7 to dispose of the amendments of the Senate numbered 10,

8 24, 81, 102, 123, and 125, and the motion printed in sec9 tion 2 of this resolution to dispose of the amendment of

10 the Senate numbered 18, are waived.

11 SEC. 2. The motion to dispose of the amendment of

12 the Senate numbered 18 is as follows:

13 ‘‘Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its dis14 agreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 18,

15 and concur therein with an amendment, as follows:

16 ‘‘In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment,

17 insert ‘: Provided, That none of the funds under this head

18 shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property

19 unless specifically authorized in writing by the property

20 owner’.’’.
# C_2020240EN.01003102.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/31

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission

(Case T-319/20)

(2020/C 240/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.

---
#### Frederick James WALDINGER, II, Appellant, v. Ronda WALDINGER, Appellee.

Nos. T-300, T-301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1973.

Wilfred C. Varn, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for appellant.

M. Howard Williams, and Stanley Bruce Powell, of Douglass & Powell, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

By these interlocutory appeals which have been consolidated for the purpose of oral argument, appellant seeks review of two post-judgment orders entered in a domestic relations proceeding. One of the orders complained of modifies the custody provisions of the previously rendered final judgment relating to the custody of the minor child born of this marriage. The second order for which review is sought adjudges appellant to be in contempt of court and sentences him to imprisonment for a period of ten days in the county jail.

We have carefully considered all eight points on appeal raised by appellant as grounds for reversal but find from the record before us ample competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the orders appealed. We further conclude that based upon the findings of fact recited in the orders here assaulted, the trial court applied correct principles of law in making its determinations. The judgments appealed are accordingly affirmed and the interlocutory appeals dismissed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 10.35****Summary of Director Compensation Arrangements**We currently pay each director who is not employed by us or any of our affiliates (i.e., allof our directors except for our Chairman, Frank F. Khulusi) a quarterly retainer of $7,000, plus$2,500 for each regular board meeting attended in person or telephonically, $1,000 for each specialboard meeting attended in person or telephonically and $1,000 for each committee meeting attendedin person or telephonically. We also pay the chairperson of the Audit Committee of our Board ofDirectors an additional quarterly retainer of $3,125 and the chairperson of the CompensationCommittee of our Board of Directors an additional quarterly retainer of $1,250 for serving in suchcapacities. Directors who are employed by us or any of our affiliates are not paid any additionalcompensation for their service on our Board of Directors. We reimburse each of our directors forreasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur in connection with attending board or committeemeetings. We have entered into indemnification agreements, a form of which is attached as anexhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2007, with each of ourdirectors.Our directors are also eligible to participate in our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended,which is administered by our Compensation Committee under authority delegated by our Board ofDirectors. The terms and conditions of option and stock bonus grants to our non-employee directorsunder our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, are determined in the discretion of ourCompensation Committee, and must be consistent with the terms of the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, asamended, which is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K.The compensation arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified fromtime to time by our Board of Directors.