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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 434

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any law enacted

pertaining to the reform of our Nation’s health care system should

apply to Members of Congress and all Federal employees enrolled in

the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), including

any individual who is appointed or elected to a position in the executive,

legislative, or judicial branch of the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1994

Mr. PORTMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Post

Office and Civil Service

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

any law enacted pertaining to the reform of our Nation’s

health care system should apply to Members of Congress

and all Federal employees enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), including

any individual who is appointed or elected to a position

in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the

United States Government.

Whereas Members of Congress and all Federal employees, so

long as each is enrolled in the Federal Employees Health

Benefits Program (FEHBP), should not be treated any
2

•HRES 434 IH

differently than any other United States citizen with respect to health care: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that any law enacted pertaining to the reform

3 of our Nation’s health care system should apply to Mem4 bers of Congress and all Federal employees enrolled in the

5 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP),

6 including any individual who is appointed or elected to a

7 position in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of

8 the United States Government.

Æ
# Official Journal C 297/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 297 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6123 August 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 297

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6123 August 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 297/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8996 — GIC Group/FPL/JustGroup/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 297/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8666 — Uralchem/Uralkali) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 297/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8786 — OMERS/DV4/QIA/ABP/Real Estate JV) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2018/C 297/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9045 — Blackstone/Aversys) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 297/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8996 — GIC Group/FPL/JustGroup/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 297/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8666 — Uralchem/Uralkali) (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 297/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8786 — OMERS/DV4/QIA/ABP/Real Estate JV) (
  1
  )

1

2

2018/C 297/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9045 — Blackstone/Aversys) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 297/05 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 297/05

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 297/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9065 — Akastor/Mitsui & Co./Mitsui O.S.K. Lines/AKOFS Offshore) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2018/C 297/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 297/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9065 — Akastor/Mitsui & Co./Mitsui O.S.K. Lines/AKOFS Offshore) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

2018/C 297/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8956 — Biogen/Samsung BioLogics/Bioepis JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
NUMBER 13-21-00061-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GABRIEL MIRANDA JR., DECEASED, 

MARIA FUENTES, GABRIEL MIRANDA SR., 

ALEXANDRA SUZANNE DELEON, REUBEN 

ANTONIO DELEON III, AND JON HIDALGO DOE, Appellants,

v.

NORMA JEAN FARLEY, Appellee.

On appeal from the 398th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

We handed down our opinion and judgment in this appeal on January 6, 2022. On 

January 13, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court granted appellee’s petition for review without 

regard to the merits, vacated our January 6, 2022 judgment, and remanded the cause to 
2

this Court “for consideration of the parties’ request that the court withdraw its opinion and 

to dismiss the appeal and underlying lawsuit in accordance with the parties’ settlement 

agreement.” The parties have now filed a “Joint Motion to Withdraw Court’s January 6, 

2022, Opinion and Dismiss the Appeal With Prejudice, Pursuant to the Parties’ 

Agreement.”

Having reviewed the joint motion, we find that it has merit and should be granted. 

Accordingly, the motion is granted. We hereby withdraw our opinion dated January 6, 

2022, and we substitute this memorandum opinion in its place. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(c). To effectuate the parties’ settlement agreement, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A),1 43.2(f). In accordance with the parties’ agreement,

each party will bear its own costs. Cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

16th day of March, 2023. 

1 The settlement agreement has not been filed with the clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(2)(A) (“In accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the 

clerk, the court may . . . render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement.”). However, the agreement is 

described in the parties’ joint motion. Accordingly, in order to expedite the resolution of the case, we 

suspend Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) insofar as it requires the agreement to be filed with the clerk, and we proceed 

to render judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
# C_2020061EN.01006001.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/60

---

Action brought on 10 January 2020 – Skyliners v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLINERS)

(Case T-15/20)

(2020/C 61/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Skyliners GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYLINERS – Application for registration No 14 570 915

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2019 in Case R 798/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the EUIPO and, in the event that the Other Party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the Intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and, in the event that the Other Party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the Intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Rules 19(2) and 15(2)(h)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Rules 19(2) and 15(2)(h)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission;

| — | Infringement of Rule 50(1) third subparagraph of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 50(1) third subparagraph of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 of the Commission and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) in conjunction with Article 94(1) first sentence of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) in conjunction with Article 94(1) first sentence 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. 229 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 229

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 3, 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. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government 
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for 
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of 
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than 
by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
clause 7 of rule XVI or section 302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to its 
consideration. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### James E. Kelly, Respondent, *v.*Alma C. Stem, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March, 1913.)

Lease — landlord and tenant — contracts — deposit as security for rent under a lease.

An agreement for the letting and renting of certain premises for a specified term at the rental of a certain sum per annum, payable monthly in advance, signed by both parties, is a valid contract.

Where the contract recited that a certain sum had been paid on account, first month’s rent, a claim of the tenant who had breached the contract that said sum was deposited as security for rent under a lease to be subsequently executed was untenable; though by the contract it was contemplated that within five days the agreement should be more precisely expressed in another form of lease.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, borough of Manhattan, fifth district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

'Samuel Bitterman; for appellant.

James E. Kelly, for respondent.

Seabury, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover $65 deposited with the defendant. The parties signed a written agreement wherein the plaintiff is referred to as the tenant, 'and the defendant is referred to as the landlord. This agreement recites that the defendant “ hereby lets ” and the plaintiff “ the undersigned tenant hereby rents ” a certain apartment in the premises Mo: 526 West' One Hundred and Eleventh street, borough of Manhattan, city of Mew York, for a term beginning October 1,1912, and ending September 30, 1913, at the rental of $780 per annum, payable monthly in advance. The agreement also contained the following clause: *“*The tenant hereby agrees to pay the first month’s rent and to sign 186 • Blumberg form of lease within, five days from this date, other-wise, this agreement may be cancelled at the landlord’s option. Deposit paid on account first *621month’s rent $65.” The agreement signed by the parlies contained all the elements of a valid contract. The fact that it contemplated that within five,days the agreement should be more precisely expressed in another form of lease did not “impair the validity of the original contract. Marcus v. Collins Building Construction Co., 27 Misc. Rep. 784. The $65 was paid as stated in the agreement *“*on account first month’s rent.” There is, therefore, no room for the claim that this money was deposited as security for the rent in a lease to be subsequently executed. The plaintiff, having entered into a written lease and paid something on account of the first month’s rent and having broken his lease, has been permitted to recover, a judgment for the part of the rent which he paid on account. Such a judgment is contrary to law, and cannot be permitted to stand.

Gerard and Bijur, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
259 La. 759

#### Arthur WOODFORK v. Irwin R. SANDERS.

No. 51602.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Arthur Woodfork applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 248 So.2d 419.

Writ denied: The judgment is not final.

McCALEB, C. J., concurs being of the opinion that the result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the result is correct.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that the opinion of the court of appeal is incorrect, that remanding the case for possible amendment is vain and useless, and that the writ should be granted.
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40462

Summary Calendar

__________________

ISMAEL MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, Receiver of Hidalgo

Savings and Loan Association, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-93-CV-084

- - - - - - - - - -

June 6, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Martinez appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint. 

Martinez challenges state-court proceedings concerning the foreclosure of his property and the

issuance of a forcible entry and detainer judgment. Because Martinez is attempting to collaterally

attack a state-court judgment, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review his
No. 95-40462

-2-

claims. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 271

(1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing Martinez's complaint with

prejudice is AFFIRMED.
H. Res. 374

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 17, 1994.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (S.

636) to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain medical clinics

and facilities, and for other purposes, and to consider the

Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be

in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the

Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.

796 as passed by the House. All points of order against that

motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate

bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move

that the House insist on its amendments to S. 636 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 394

To express the sense of the House that Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters related to the operation of the

Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 1994

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself and Mr. MICHEL) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the House that Congress has a

constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters

related to the operation of the Government.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that:

3 (a) Congress has a constitutional obligation to

4 conduct oversight of matters relating to the oper5 ations of the Government, including matters related

6 to any governmental investigations which may, from

7 time to time, be undertaken.

8 (b) The Speaker, majority and minority leaders

9 should meet to determine the appropriate timetable,
2

HRES 394 ATH

1 procedures, and forum for appropriate congressional

2 oversight, including hearings on all matters related

3 to ‘‘Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Associa4 tion (‘MGS&L’), Whitewater Development Corpora5 tion and Capital Management Services Inc.

6 (‘CMS’)’’.

7 (c) No witness called to testify at these hear8 ings shall be granted immunity under sections 6002

9 and 6005 of title 18, United States Code, over the

10 objection of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

11 (d) The hearings should be structured and

12 sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of

13 the leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing

14 investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

Æ
# C_2023112EN.01001001.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS

(Case C-788/21, (1) Global Gravity)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7616 99 90 and 8609 00 90 - Tubular Transport Running System (TubeLock) - Meaning of ‘container’)

(2023/C 112/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Retten i Esbjerg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet Departementet

Defendant: Global Gravity ApS

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8609 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013,

must be interpreted as not covering a device for transporting pipes that consists of a number of aluminium lifting profiles between two of which the pipes to be transported are placed perpendicularly, those two lifting profiles being linked together by two steel lifting poles that are equipped with eyelets, and on top of which additional pipes may then be placed in the same way until the load comprises the number of pipes to be transported, the load then being completed by the attachment of steel slings to the lifting poles at the four corners of the load (by passing them through the said eyelets) in order to facilitate handling of the load, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED IN ITEM 1 TO THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,689
<SECURITIES>                                    30,961
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,623
<PP&E>                                           1,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                     310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,020
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (350)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>