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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 288

Requiring the committees of the House of Representatives to report legislation

to include the Congress under certain employment and civil rights laws.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1993

Mr. BONILLA (for himself, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. PENNY, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. COOPER, Mr. BARTON of

Texas, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. PARKER, Mr. COX, Mr.

GUTIERREZ, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. COPPERSMITH, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.

BOEHNER, Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Mr.

GRAMS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred jointly to

the Committees on House Administration, Ways and Means, Education

and Labor, Government Operations, and the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Requiring the committees of the House of Representatives

to report legislation to include the Congress under certain employment and civil rights laws.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

3 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that

4 the generally applicable employment and civil rights laws

5 of the United States should apply to the Congress.
2

•HRES 288 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES TO RE2 PORT LEGISLATION TO MAKE CONGRESS

3 SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT AND CIVIL

4 RIGHTS LAWS.

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than the end of the

6 first session of the One Hundred Third Congress, the ap7 propriate committees of the House of Representatives

8 shall report legislation providing for coverage of the Con9 gress by the laws specified in subsection (b), together with

10 any related or similar laws.

11 (b) LAWS SPECIFIED.—The laws referred to in sub12 section (a) are—

13 (1) the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et

14 seq.);

15 (2) the National Labor Relations Act (29

16 U.S.C. 151 et seq.);

17 (3) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29

18 U.S.C. 201 et seq.);

19 (4) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.

20 2000a et seq.);

21 (5) section 552 of title 5, United States Code,

22 commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information

23 Act;

24 (6) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

25 of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.);
3

•HRES 288 IH

1 (7) the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

2 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.);

3 (8) title IX of the Education Amendments of

4 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

5 (9) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.

6 701 et seq.);

7 (10) section 552a and section 552a note of title

8 5, United States Code, commonly known together as

9 the Privacy Act of 1974;

10 (11) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42

11 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.);

12 (12) the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (2

13 U.S.C. 701 et seq. and 5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.);

14 and

15 (13) the Americans with Disabilities Act of

16 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

Æ
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 3.4

                                        I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A COPY OF
                                        A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF
                                        COMPANIES ON SEP 11 1987     19
                                                     ---------------   -----
                                        /s/ illegible
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        ASSISTANT DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
                                        FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA


                                     FORM 21

                                  (Section 371)

                          PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

                                   COMPANY ACT

                                                         Cert. of Incorp. 330743

                               SPECIAL RESOLUTION

     The following special resolutions were passed by the undermentioned Company
on the date stated:

Name of Company:  NO. 96 SAIL VIEW VENTURES LTD.

Date resolutions passed:  September 9, 1987

Resolution:

     "RESOLVED, as special resolutions, that:

1.   The name of the Company be changed from "NO. 96 SAIL VIEW VENTURES LTD." to
     "EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD."

2.   Item 1 of the Memorandum of the Company be changed to read:

     The name of the Company is "EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD."

3.   The capital of the Company be altered by increasing the authorized capital
     of the Company from 10,000 Common shares without par value to 20,000,000
     Common shares without par value.

4.   The Memorandum as altered by these resolutions be in the form attached
     hereto and marked Schedule "A", so that the Memorandum as altered shall at
     the time of filing comply with the Company Act."



CERTIFIED a true copy the 9th day of September, 1987.



                                                   /s/ illegible
                                                  -----------------------------

                                                            Solicitor
                                                  -----------------------------

<PAGE>

                                  SCHEDULE "A"

                                   MEMORANDUM

                       (As altered by special resolutions
                      dated the 9th day of September, 1987)

                                       of

                          EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD.



1.   The name of the Company is "EAST COAST EXPLORATIONS LTD."

2.   The authorized capital of the Company consists of Twenty Million
     (20,000,000) Common shares without par value.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.17




                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                           THE BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                             DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN


The Borders Group, Inc. Director Stock Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended in
the following particulars, effective January 1, 1998:

1.   The reference to "$.001 par value" is hereby eliminated from paragraph (p)
     of Article 2 of the Plan.

2.   Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
     follows:

            "4.2 Grants of Restricted Shares for Annual Fee.  In the case of an
     individual who is a Participant at the beginning of a Plan Year, his or
     her fee for service as a director for the Plan Year shall be provided in
     the form of a grant of Restricted Shares made on the first business day of 
     the Plan Year.  The number of Restricted Shares granted to the director
     shall be the lesser of:  (i) 2,000, or (ii) $75,000 divided by the Fair
     Market Value of a Share on the date of grant.  In the case of an
     individual who is not a Participant at the beginning of a Plan Year, his
     or her fee for service as a director for the Plan Year shall be provided
     in the form of a grant of Restricted Shares made on the last business day
     of the Plan Quarter in which he or she becomes a Participant.  The number
     of Restricted Shares granted to the director shall be number of Restricted
     Shares granted to an individual who was a Participant at the beginning of
     a Plan Year multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number
     of days remaining in the Plan Year from and after the date upon which the
     individual becomes a director and the denominator of which is 365. 
     Fractional Shares, if any, shall be paid in cash.  The number of
     Restricted Shares to be granted to directors shall be subject to
     adjustment as provided in Article 11 hereof.

3.   Section 4.3 is hereby eliminated from the Plan.

     Except as herein amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



                                                Borders Group, Inc.

                                                By:  George R. Mrkonic
                                                   -------------------------

                                                Its:  Vice President
                                                    ------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 212 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 212

  Relating to State actions to protect children from injury in motor 
                           vehicle accidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 1993

Mr. Franks of Connecticut submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Relating to State actions to protect children from injury in motor 
                           vehicle accidents.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
each of the several States should take such action as may be necessary 
or appropriate to require by law that--
            (1) while a motor vehicle is in operation--
                    (A) any child who has not attained 4 years of age 
                must be secured in a federally-approved child safety 
                seat that is appropriately attached to the vehicle, and
                    (B) any child who has attained 4 years of age but 
                not 17 years of age must be properly restrained, 
                regardless whether occupying a front or back seat;
            (2) the operator of a motor vehicle (regardless of the 
        State of residency of the operator) has a legal duty to ensure 
        that the requirements referred to in paragraph (1) are complied 
        with; and
            (3) the failure of an individual to comply with the duty 
        referred to in paragraph (2) constitutes a moving violation 
        under such law.

                                 <all>
```
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison . 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 205 I 0 

Dear Senator Hutchison: 

July 17, 2012 

Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted by the Beaumont/Port Arthur Jack 

Brooks Regional Airport for a grant under the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small 

Community Air Service Development Program. 

The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller 

communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or 

insufficient service. Under the statute, the Depm1ment may make a maximum of 40 grant 

awards each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. 

In order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service 

deficiencies, the.statute provides flexibility in the types of projects that can be funded. 

On May 15, the Department issued an order requesting that communities interested in receiving a 

grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests· are pending before the 

Department, I cannot comment on the merits of any particular proposal. .J assure you that the 

Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properly filed. 

As is our normal practice, I am placi 

DOT-OST-2012-0069 as a contact 

this program. 
COMMITTEES: I<AY BAILEY HUTCHISON 

TEXAS APPROPRIATIONS 

COMMERCE. SCIENCE, 

AND TRANSPORTATION 

\tinitcd ~totes ~cnatc 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4304 

June 1, 2012 

FI!JI.ES AND ADMINISTRATION 

·The Beaumont/Port Arthur Jack Brooks Regional Airport has notified me that it 

has submitted an application to be considered for the Small Community Air Service 

Development Grant Program. I am pleased to support the application. 

I am requesting the Department of Transportation to carefully consider the merits 

of the grant proposal and ensure it receives a fair and thorough review during the 

evaluation process. The Airport has informed me of the positive impact this grant will 

. have in the community by increasing regional travel options and convenience for airline 

passengers. 

Should you have any questions regarding the grant application, I hope you will 

not hesitate to contact Lucas Szabo in my office for additional information. 

KBH!ls 

-~ 510-120613-024 Web=http:l/hutchlson.senate.gov
House Calendar No. 193

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 495

[Report No. 103–628]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolu31 of each year. the Congress adjourn sine die not later than July the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that tion waiving the requirement in section 132 of

JULY 28, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 193

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 495

[Report No. 103–628]

Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution waiving the requirement

in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the

Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 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 consideration of a concurrent resolution

waiving the requirement in section 132 of the Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress adjourn

sine die not later than July 31 of each year.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House a concurrent

3 resolution waiving the requirement in section 132 of the

4 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that the Congress

5 adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each year. The

6 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
2

HRES 495 RH

1 concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening

2 motion.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
American Architectural Products Corporation


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-4/A No. 333-44275 and Form S-8 No. 333-61051 pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option Plan) of our report dated June 2, 2000, which contains an
explanatory paragraph with respect to a going concern uncertainty, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 1999; the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the financial statement schedule for
the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998 of American Architectural Products
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


                                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Akron, Ohio
October 5, 2001













                                       57
#### LICOHO ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUCCESSION OF Herbert CHAMPAGNE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3975.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1972.

John K. Hill, Jr., Lafayette, Anthony G. D’Antonio, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Armentor & Wattigny by Minos H. Armentor, New Iberia, for defendant-ap-pellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and MILLER, JJ-

MILLER, Judge.

This is a companion case to Licoho Enterprises, Inc. v. Succession of Herbert Champagne, 270 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1972) decided this date. The issues presented at trial of both cases were identical and the trial court handed down one opinion and signed one judgment to decide both cases.

In this case, Licoho sought to make a May 6, 1968 Orleans District Court judgment executory and issued a writ of fi. fa. to seize and sell the succession property to satisfy the Orleans judgment. After the Succession reconvened and third partied Warren J. Moity, Licoho dismissed this suit without prejudice, but the reconven-tional demand and third party action was not dismissed.

Licoho then filed the suit which is the subject of the consolidated appeal seeking to have the Orleans judgment recognized as a debt and to include it in the list of debts to be paid with the other debts of the succession. Essentially the same answer, reconventional demand and third party action against Warren J, Moity was filed in the second Iberia case.

For the reasons assigned in Licoho Enterprises, Inc. v. Succession of Herbert Champagne, 270 So.2d 139 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1972), our decision in No. *3976*applies to this case.

Reversed in part; in part, amended.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00262-CV

MASS MARKETING, LTD. d/b/a Super S Foods,

Appellant

v.

Stephen FREY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-14019

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (absent

agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert J. DARNELL, Appellee.

No. 68-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 2, 1970.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Robert E. Metzker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on December 24, 1968 (217 So.2d 127) affirming the order of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed January 7, 1970 (230 So.2d 151), and mandate dated January 23, 1970, quashed this court’s judgment of affirmance and remanded the cause for further proceedings;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on January 17, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed December 14, 1968 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court .of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the order of the Criminal Court appealed in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Criminal Court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
# C_2020359EN.01001401.xml

| 26.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/14

---

Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB

(Case T-555/20)

(2020/C 359/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

| — | annul the staff report for 2015, drawn up on 8 October 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the staff report for 2015, drawn up on 8 October 2019;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 7 February 2020 and 24 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and complaint respectively; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 7 February 2020 and 24 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and complaint respectively;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports, in particular in so far as there was no new appraisal in relation to the applicant, but simply a copy and paste of the appraisal in the initial staff report. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports, in particular in so far as there was no new appraisal in relation to the applicant, but simply a copy and paste of the appraisal in the initial staff report.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, and infringement of the duty of care, in particular in so far as the applicant’s staff report does not identify any suggestions for improvement and does not set objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, and infringement of the duty of care, in particular in so far as the applicant’s staff report does not identify any suggestions for improvement and does not set objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested staff report is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in that report.

---
11/09/201 0 11:5 6 202267507 5 OFFIC E O F RULEMAKING PAG E 2 0 

## DEPARTMEN T O F HANSPORTATIO N CKE T OPERATION S ) NOV- q P | : l b Hart]c>- LcRo y 1992 7 Sandyedg e Driv e Cornelius , N C 28031-602 5 Octobe r 27 . 201 0 Adminisliaioi ' J . Randolp h Babbitt Roo mlOTO, 80 0 Independenc e Ave,SW , Wash.D C 2059 1

Re: Support

thes e cliangc s t o tl « FAA' s Fligh t Tirae/Dutj - Tim e NPR M Dear AdiniDistniio r

Biibbitt ; A s aU S commercia l pilo t reviewin g th e FAA Notic e o f Propose dRnlejnakin g (NPRM ) o n Fligh t crew mcinbc r Dut> ^ an dRes t

Requirements I a mplease dtha t th e majoritj-o f

ij> c NPRW represents an impiwemen t t o cuiren t regulation s an dcover s al l coramercjal . opei^on s i n th e spiri t of "On e Leve l o f

Safetj. " However , ther e ar c soni c specifi c ilcm s tha t

nee dt o b e change di n orde r t o midgat e fodgue for

di e professiona l pilot . 1 ) Th e fligh t

tim e limi t

shoul dno t

b e increase d25 % from S hour s t o 1 0 hours . 2 ) Tli c augmente d( 3 person ) flight tim e limi t

shoul dno t

b e increase d25 % fro

m1 2 t o 1 5 boms . i> ) Res t requirement s shoul db e 1 0 hour s domesti c an d1 4 hour s intcmationa L 9 hours , reducibl e t o 8 hour s i s no t eaougl i tim e t o achiev e restorativ e sleep , eat , an datten dt o persona l hj'gien e betwee n did} ' periods . 4 ) DojnestJf

f augmentatio n shoul dno t b e allowed . A s aprofessiona l commercia l aviato r workin g a t

hig h fpec di n congeste dairfpace , an dthroug h arduou s weathe r conditions , I ca n tel l yo u tha t fatigu e midgatio n i s paramoun t t o improvin g th e safet> ' o f th e travellin g public . Tlte NTS B ha s hel dfatigu e o n it s "Mos t Wante dList " fo r

ticarty y-ear

s becaus e i t

i s aproble mtha t

flight crew s dea l with o n adail y basis . Tlti s FAA NPR M wil l g o alon g wa y t o reducin g fatigu e an dincreasin g safetj - i f thes e item s are addressed . Sincerely ,



# 'WLSA ' Captai n Hartlej - D , LeRoy . U S Airway s 704g9400(; 5 hdleroy@gmail . co m