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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 530

Providing that the House should not consider health care legislation in violation of section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 or any health care legislation that amends or

supercedes that section.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 1994

Mr. MILLER of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing that the House should not consider health care

legislation in violation of section 252 of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or

any health care legislation that amends or supercedes

that section.

Whereas the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was enacted

to reduce Government spending;

Whereas the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was designed

to ensure that any changes to mandatory spending programs be deficit neutral;

Whereas health care expenditures are the fastest growing

portion of the Federal budget; and
2

•HRES 530 IH

Whereas health care legislation reported by the Committee on

Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and

Means contain large expansions of Federal health expenditures: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That no health care legislation should be

2 considered by the House of Representatives—

3 (1) that the Congressional Budget Office finds

4 would cause a sequestration under section 252 of the

5 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

6 Act of 1985, or

7 (2) that would amend or supercede that section.

Æ
#### Alfred Gene BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 10, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020255EN.01003601.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/36

---

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-379/20)

(2020/C 255/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 (1); and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are similar to those raised in case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission.

---

(1)  European Commission Decision (EU) of 24 April 2020 on State aid SA.57061 -- Sweden — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines (not yet published in the Official Journal)

---
# C_2023205EN.01000701.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 April 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-602/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Noise prevention - Major roads and major railways - Article 8(1) and (2) - Non-compliant or nonexistent action plans - Article 10(2) - Annex VI - Nonexistent summaries of action plans)

(2023/C 205/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Milanowska, M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Rynkowski, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) and (2), Annex V, point 1, ninth indent, and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI of that directive:






  — | by failing to adopt, within the time limits laid down by that directive, action plans for the areas in which the limit values were not exceeded; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) and (2), Annex V, point 1, ninth indent, and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, read in conjunction with Annex VI of that directive:

—

by failing to adopt, within the time limits laid down by that directive, action plans for the areas in which the limit values were not exceeded;

| — | by failing to make provision for the action plans to include actions intended to be taken in the next five years to preserve quiet areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to make provision for the action plans to include actions intended to be taken in the next five years to preserve quiet areas;

| — | by failing to draw up action plans concerning the 13 major railways and 247 major roads referred to in Annex A to the present judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to draw up action plans concerning the 13 major railways and 247 major roads referred to in Annex A to the present judgment; and

| — | by failing to submit summaries of the action plans concerning those major railways and major roads as well as the 16 major roads referred to in Annex B to the present judgment. |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to submit summaries of the action plans concerning those major railways and major roads as well as the 16 major roads referred to in Annex B to the present judgment.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---
#### Richard L. PIERCE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42892.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent No. 9,106,715 titled “System and Method for Rapid Dissemination of Image Products,” issued on August 11, 2015. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, SDMC-JA, Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, email:                         *christine.j.gilsdorf.civ@mail.mil*                         (256) 955-3213.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The invention pertains to rapid dissemination of image products. A data consumer display device sends a geospatial request for a map image of a specific area of interest to a rapid image distribution system (RIDS), which forwards the request to a sensor ground station. The sensor ground station processes data received from a sensor platform and sends the processed data to a georectification processor. The georectification processor creates georectified data and sends the georectified data to the RIDS, which further processes the data, exposing it to data consumers using network optimized data services (                    *e.g.,*                     KML/KMZ, TMS, GeoRSS, image chipper) based on geographic coordinates provided in the query that is a smaller subset of the sensor data. The RIDS sends the image product to the data consumer display device for display.                

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-14613 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
# C_2020114EN.01001502.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/15

---

Action brought on 13 February 2020 — Qx World v EUIPO — Mandelay (EDUCTOR)

(Case T-85/20)

(2020/C 114/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Kft. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EDUCTOR — European Union trade mark No 12 250 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 in Case R 1311/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution;

| — | as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution. |
| --- | --- |

—

as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 449 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 172
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 449

                          [Report No. 103-540]

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4506) making 
  appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4506) making 
  appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That during consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union of the bill (H.R. 4506) making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, all points of order 
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 
or rule XXI are waived. The amendment printed in section 2 of this 
resolution may be offered only by Representative Bevill of Alabama or 
his designee, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
    Sec. 2. The amendment that may be offered only by Representative 
Bevill of Alabama or his designee is as follows:
            Page 21, line 24, strike ``$3,164,369,000'' and insert 
        ``$3,201,369,000''.
            Page 23, line 10, strike ``$1,879,204,000'' and insert 
        ``$1,842,204,000''.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 172

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 449

                          [Report No. 103-540]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4506) making 
  appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 9, 1994

       Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
```
#### In the Matter of Sharon Roth, Respondent, v Richard W. Bowman, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 730]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered January 23, 1996, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Ekadis, H.E.), entered October 11, 1995, which, *inter alia,*denied his application for a downward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the respondent’s objections to the order which, *inter alia,*denied his application for a downward modification of child support. A prior order of child support may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). It is the burden of the moving party to establish the change in circumstances warranting the modification *(see, Rosen v Rosen,*193 AD2d 661, 662; *Carr v Carr,*187 AD2d 407, 408). A determination of a substantial change of circumstances is a matter "addressed to the discretion of the court with each case turning on its particular facts” *(Matter of King v King,*193 AD2d 800, 801; *see, Stempler v Stempler,*200 AD2d 733, 734; *Matter of Kronenberg v Kronenberg,*101 AD2d 951). Furthermore, when a request for downward modification of child support depends on the credibility of the movant, the determination of the trier of facts is to be accorded great weight *(see, Stempler v Stempler, supra; Matter of King v King, supra; Vant v Vant,*161 AD2d 636, 637).

Here, the Family Court properly concluded that there was no basis in the record for interference with the Hearing Examiner’s conclusions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 420 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 420

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 10, 1994.
    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. 2442) to reauthorize appropriations under the Public Works and 
Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, to revise administrative 
provisions of the Act to improve the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to 
administer grant programs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
in order by this resolution and shall not exceed ninety minutes, with sixty 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and thirty minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of 
the committee amendments now printed in the bill, 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 printed in part 1 of the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Before consideration of any 
other amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part 2 
of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by a Member designated in 
the report. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are 
waived. 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 amendment 
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 21

- 00011

- CV

Amanda WOOD and C.E.W., Jr., Appellants

v.

Kenneth VERNON , Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Katrina Fuller, Family Endeavors, Inc., Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CI10235 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 24, 2021

DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On February 22 , 2021 , the trial court clerk notified this court that the clerk’s record was

not filed when it was origi nally due because appellant s had failed to pay or make arrangements to

pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant s w ere not entitled to appeal without

paying the fee. On February 2 4 , 2021, this court ordered appellant s to show cause in wri ting by

March 5, 2021, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant s did04

- 21

- 00011

- CV

- 2

- not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b). Costs of the appeal are taxed agains t appellant s

.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 154 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 154

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that any 
  general appropriation bill making appropriations for the Veterans' 
Administration may not make appropriations for any other department or 
                      agency of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that any 
  general appropriation bill making appropriations for the Veterans' 
Administration may not make appropriations for any other department or 
                      agency of the United States.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``8. No general appropriation bill reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations making appropriations for the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs shall make appropriations for any other department or agency of 
the United States.''.

                                 <all>
```