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

House Calendar No. 247

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 575

[Report No. 103–846]

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R.

1348) to establish the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National

Heritage Corridor in the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

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

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment

to the bill (H.R. 1348) to establish the Quinebaug and

Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor in

the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary

3 notwithstanding, to take from the Speaker’s table the bill

4 (H.R. 1348) to establish the Quinebaug and Shetucket

5 Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor in the State of

6 Connecticut, and for other purposes, with a Senate
2

HRES 575 RH

1 amendment thereto, and to consider a motion that the

2 House concur therein. The Senate amendment and the

3 motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be

4 debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by

5 the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com6 mittee on Natural Resources. The previous question shall

7 be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption

8 without intervening motion.

House Calendar No. 247

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 575

[Report No. 103–846]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the Senate

necticut, and for other purposes.tional Heritage Corridor in the State of Conthe Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley Naamendment to the bill (H.R. 1348) to establish

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, OCTOBER 6), 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Quality Control for Procured Printing

On-Site Inspection Report

State Code ______________________ Contractor Code _____________ Contractor Name __________________________________________

Inspector’s Name ______________________________________________ Inspection Date ____________________________________________

Jacket No. _______________________ Prog./P.O. ___________________ Press Insp. ____________________ Bindery Insp. _______________

Type of Product ________________________________________________ No. Pages _____________________ No. Colors _________________

1. What equipment was used for this order? ________________________________________________________ Sheet fed Web 

2. Who was the person responsible for QC on this order? ____________________________________________________________________

 Who did you work with in this inspection; and what is their position? ________________________________________________________

 What is their knowledge of our QC Program? _____________________________________________________________________________

3. Where was the inspection done? Pressroom Inspection Booth Bindery Other ________________________________

 Describe the conditions/atmosphere.

4. Were the copy, proofs and samples available and ready? Yes No 

5. Was the contractor on time for the inspection? Yes No 

 If late, how late and why?

6. What difficulties were encountered? 

 Describe.

7. What was the cause of the difficulties? GFM Other 

 Describe.

8. Was any unusual assistance required? Yes No 

 Describe.

9. What were the results of the inspection? 

 Describe.

10. Would you recommend this firm for similar products at this level? Level ________ Yes No 

 Why? 

11. Continuation (No.) _________ 

Report Date ___________________ Inspector’s Initials ________

Send the form via mail to Quality Control for Procured Printing, U.S. Government Printing Office, Room C848, Stop PPSQ, 732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401, 

email to QCPP@gpo.gov, or fax to 202.512.1343.

print
# C_2022222EN.01002603.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2022 — Nec Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-786/21 P) (1)

(2022/C 222/43)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
# C_2023015EN.01001301.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat

(Case C-230/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 2(f) - Article 10(3)(a) - Concept of ‘unaccompanied minor’ - Right to family reunification - Refugee minor who is married at the time of her entry into the territory of a Member State - Child marriage not recognised in that Member State - Cohabitation with the spouse lawfully residing in that Member State)

(2023/C 15/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(3)(a) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, read in conjunction with Article 2(f) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that an unaccompanied refugee minor residing in a Member State does not have to be unmarried in order to acquire the status of sponsor for the purposes of family reunification with his or her first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
# C_2022359EN.01001002.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CC v VO

(Case C-572/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) and Article 61(a) - General jurisdiction - Perpetuatio fori principle - Transfer, during the proceedings, of the habitual residence of a child from a Member State of the European Union to a third State that is party to the 1996 Hague Convention)

(2022/C 359/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CC

Defendant: VO

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, read in conjunction with Article 61(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that is hearing a dispute relating to parental responsibility does not retain jurisdiction to rule on that dispute under Article 8(1) of that regulation where the habitual residence of the child in question has been lawfully transferred, during the proceedings, to the territory of a third State that is a party to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
#### THE STATE *vs.*JAMES HARTEN.

Discharge on a petition for freedom, founded on the illegal exportation of petitioner by his master, is evidence of his freedom, on an indictment for kidnapping him.

The general reputation of a kidnapper is evidence of the intent with which defendant aided him in carrying off a free negro.

Kent,

October term, 1847.

On the trial of James Harten, who was indicted with Jacob R. Griffin and others, for kidnapping one Peter Howard, a free negro, with a count for aiding and assisting Griffin to kidnap, it was ruled,

1st. That the record of Peter Howard’s discharge on a petition for freedom filed against his former master for selling him out of the State, was sufficient evidence of his being a free negro.

2d. That the general reputation of Jacob R. Griffin as a kidnapper might be given in evidence, to show the intent with which the defendant aided him in binding and carrying off the said Howard.

The defendant was convicted.
263 La. 989

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmie STORY et al.

No. 53042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Jimmy Story, Daniel P. McFall, Danny J. Gaudin applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.
#### Leroy HIGGINBOTHAM v. Nisha Rae HIGGINBOTHAM.

No. 53175.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1973.

In re: Nisha Rae Higginbotham applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 270 So.2d 247.

Writ refused. The case having been remanded for further proceedings the judgment is not final.
Exhibit 21.1   List of Subsidiaries

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Percentage
Name of Subsidiary                                                     Country of          of Ownership
                                                                       Incorporation      (if less than 100%)

<S>                                                                    <C>                      <C>
Taitron Components Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                Mexico                   60%
Taitron Components Taiwan Branch (U.S.A.)                              Taiwan
Taitron Components Incorporated e Representacoes do Brasil LTDA        Brazil
Taitron Components Incorporated -Shanghai Representative Office        China
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm -
               Haskell & White LLP

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-94102, of Taitron Components Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 9, 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Taitron
Components Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                                   /s/ Haskell & White LLP

Irvine, California
March 31, 2006
#### Zenaida GONZALEZ, individually and as *surviving*widow and as Administratrix of the Estate of Armando Gonzalez, deceased, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Armando Perez, Appellees.

No. 71-860.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellant.

Talburt, Kubicki, Volger & Carhart, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Baker v. Hausman, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 572; and Bryan v. Bryan, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 513.
Exhibit
4(iii)


 


[] 


MEMBERS
Life Insurance Company 


[2000
Heritage Way, Waverly, Iowa 50677]


Phone:
[800.798.5500]


[http://www.cunamutual.com]



 


AMENDMENT
TO ANNUITY APPLICATION 


 


IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR CONTRACT COVERAGE 


 





	Owner:	[John
    Doe]	 	[Contract
    Number:	[123456789]]
    	 


	[Joint
    Owner:	[Jane
    Doe]	]


	[Annuitant
    (if other than Owner):	[James
    Doe]	]


	[Joint
    Annuitant (if other than Joint Owner):	[Jimmy
    Doe]	]


	Date of Original Application:	[October
    1, 2020]	 


 


I
understand and agree that the application [and contract issued on the basis of the application]
is amended as follows: 


 


		Plan
    Option	
	The Plan Option is [____________].  
	 	●	CUNA Mutual Group ZoneChoiceTM
    Annuity
	 	●	Other – see Explanation of Variables





	 	 	 	 	 	 
		Owner
    and Annuitant	
		●	The gender of the above named [Owner]
    is [male].	
	●	The date of birth of the above named [Owner]
    is [January 15, 1956].    
	●	The [Joint
    Annuitant] of this contract is [Jane Doe].
	●	Other – see Explanation of Variables.





	 	 	 	 	 	 
		Annuity
    Type  	
	The Annuity Type is [___________].
    	 
		●	Non-qualified; 	 
	●	Non-qualified stretch 
	●	Traditional IRA;  
	●	Roth IRA;  
	●	Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA;
        
	●	Inherited IRA – Traditional;
	●	Inherited IRA - Roth  
	●	Other – see Explanation of Variables





	 	 	 	 	 	 
		Purchase
    Payment Allocation	
	The purchase payment is allocated
    as follows: 	 
		●	[Percentage]
    [to Allocation Option]  	
	●	Other – see Explanation of Variables    


 


		Incomplete
    Information	
	 
	I hereby verify that [______________]
    of the application is as stated below: 
	 	-------
    Dictation Area --------	 


 


2020-APPAMEND


 






    1 


     


    

 





	Signatures
    




 


This
amendment is effective as of the issue date of the contract to which it is attached. I agree that the representations in this
Amendment are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief on the date signed.


 


	Date signed:	 	 
	 	(month,
    day and year)	 


 


	 	Signature
    of Owner	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Signature
    of Joint Owner





	 	 	 	 
		[Louisiana:]
    [The Annuitant must
    agree to the representations in 

    this Amendment when they are not the Owner or Joint Owner.]	
	 	 
	Signature
    of Annuitant (if other than Owner)  	 
	 	 
	Signature
    of Joint Annuitant (if other than Joint Owner)  	 


 


MEMBERS
Life Insurance Company


 


			 
	 
	President




 


2020-APPAMEND


 






    2
#### Angelina Pellati, Respondent, v Lite & Lite et al., Appellants.

[736 NYS2d 419]

In an action to recover damages *545for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated April 18, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An action to recover damages for legal malpractice accrues when the malpractice is committed *(see, Glamm v Allen,*57 NY2d 87; *Piliero v Adler & Stavros,*282 AD2d 511). Pursuant to the continuous representation doctrine, the statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in legal malpractice is tolled until the completion of the attorney’s ongoing representation concerning the matter out of which the malpractice claim arises *(see, Shumsky v Eisenstein,*96 NY2d 164; *Weiss v Manfredi,*83 NY2d 974). For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be “clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” *(Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner,*166 AD2d 505, 506-507; *see, Piliero v Adler & Stavros, supra; Pittelli v Schulman,*128 AD2d 600). Its application is limited, however, to instances in which the attorney’s involvement in the case after the alleged malpractice is for the performance of the same or related services and is not merely the continuation of a general professional relationship *(see, Luk Lamellen U. Kupplungbau GmbH v Lerner, supra,*at 507).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, their representation of the plaintiff, as the landlord, in connection with a summary eviction proceeding did not cease in 1992 when the tenant, an assignee of the subject lease, was evicted from the premises. The three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice was tolled as a result of the defendants’ continued representation of the plaintiff in 1994, when a wrongful eviction action was commenced against her by the assignor of the lease for failing to serve him with the petition in the 1992 eviction proceeding. In the plaintiffs defense, inter alia, the defendants claimed that the assignor was obligated to pay the rent which his evicted assignee had failed to pay. Accordingly, the defendants asserted a counterclaim for nonpayment of rent on behalf of the plaintiff. It is clear that the legal services rendered by the defendants were related to the matter from which the malpractice claim arose *(see, Weiss v Manfredi, supra; Glamm v Allen, supra; Lee v Smith,*272 AD2d 526). The running of the statute of limitations was tolled until the defendants were relieved as *546the plaintiffs counsel after they prepared the notice of appeal and filed it on June 2, 1997. This action was commenced on April 2, 2000, and is therefore timely. S. Miller, J.P., O’Brien, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
June 11, 2012

Ms. Aloha Ley

Small Community Air Service Development Program

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20303

OST-2012-0069

Pangborn Memorial Airport (Wenatchee, WA)

Dear Aloha:

SeaPort Airlines is writing this letter to convey our strong support of Pangborn Memorial Airport’s

application for a grant under the Small Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Program.

On March 1, 2012 SeaPort initiated service at Wenatchee. This created, for the first time in many years, 

a service level of more than one airline and more than one nonstop destination. As a result, we believe 

that the limited historical service levels resulted in a large percentage of potential travelers using airports, 

primarily Spokane and Seattle. While we are very pleased with the early results of our Wenatchee 

service, it is not yet profitable on a fully-allocated basis. 

The funds that Pangborn Memorial Airport and its community partners are requesting will help to ensure

travelers in the Wenatchee area are aware of the greater choices now available at their “hometown” 

airport, as well as increase awareness in the Portland area of the great tourism offerings in the 

Wenatchee region. Finally, we believe the benefits of the marketing program would extend beyond our 

own service and equally benefit the long-standing service offered by Horizon Air.

For these reasons, we urge you to strongly considering awarding Pangborn Memorial Airport their 

request for SCASD marketing funds. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Respectfully,

Timothy F. Sieber

VP – Strategy & Corporate Development
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 415 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 415

 Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 830) to amend title 
  5, United States Code, to clarify procedures for judicial review of 
    Federal agency compliance with regulatory flexibility analysis 
                 requirements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 830) to amend title 
  5, United States Code, to clarify procedures for judicial review of 
    Federal agency compliance with regulatory flexibility analysis 
                 requirements, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 830) to 
amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify procedures for judicial 
review of Federal agency compliance with regulatory flexibility 
analysis requirements, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of order against the bill 
and against its consideration are waived. After general debate which 
shall be confined to the bill, and which shall not exceed 3 hours, 1 
hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 1 hour to be equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Small Business, and 1 hour to be controlled by 
Representative Ewing of Illinois, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule, and each section shall be considered 
as read. If on any day the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next 
legislative day the House shall, immediately after the approval of the 
Journal, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
consideration of the bill.
    At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment 
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 333 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 333

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Ways and Means in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 1994

Mr. Rostenkowski submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Ways and Means in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of studies and investigations by 
the Committee on Ways and Means (hereinafter in this resolution 
referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for procurement 
of consultant services under section 202(i) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, there shall be paid out of the contingent 
fund of the House not more than $5,070,000.
    (b) Not more than $10,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```