alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 492

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 28, 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 (S. 208) to reform the concessions policies of the National Park Service, 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) 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 Committee on Natural

Resources. 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 Committee on Natural

Resources now printed in the bill, modified by the amend-
2

HRES 492 EH

ment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each section of the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall

be considered as read. Points of order against the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, for

failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI 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

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. 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.
# Official Journal C 351A/23 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 351A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5823 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 351A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5823 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 351A/1 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/118 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2015/C 351A/1

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/118

1

---

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

EN
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

NO. _________

RODNEY CARNELL MAYS

Appellant,

On Appeal from the

V. County Criminal Court No. 7

Harris County, Texas;

Trial Cause Number 1875634

THE STATE OF TEXAS

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

RODNEY CARNELL MAYS, Petitioner in the above cause number, would

respectfully request th is Court to grant h is motion to extend the time to file h is

petition for discretionary review. In support of said motion, Mr

. Mays would show

unto the Court the following:

I.

This appeal lies from Mr

. Mays ’ conviction in The State of Texas v. Rodney Carnell

Mays

, Cause Number 1875634 in the County Criminal Court Number 7 of Harris

County, Texas. Mr

. Mays was charged with misdemeanor assault on a family member.

Mr. Mays was convicted by the court and sentenced to fifty-six ( 56 ) days in th e Harris

County Jail. Mr

. Mays ’ conviction was affirmed on October 13

, 201 5, by the First PD-1372-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/21/2015 2:45:56 PM

Accepted 10/21/2015 3:45:47 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERKCourt of Appeals in Cause No. 0 1

- 1 3

- 00 805

- CR. M r

. Mays ’ Petition for Discretionary

Review is due November 1 2 , 201 5 . This is M r

. Mays ’ first request for an extension to

file the petition for discretionary review.

II.

M r

. Mays ’ attorney of record, Daucie Schindler

, is requesting an extension of

time in order to further evaluate the complex issues invol ved in the case. An

extensio n of time is necessary so that the petition for discretionary review can be

timely filed and undersigned counsel can properly consult with M r

. Mays . This

motion is not made for the purpose of delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays t hat this

Honorable Court will grant this requested extension of time to file the Appellant's

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above cause for thirty days and extend the

time for filing the petition until December 1 2 , 201 5

.Respectfully subm itted,

Alexander Bunin

Chief Public Defender

/s/ Daucie Schindler

Daucie Schindler

State Bar No. 240 13495

Harris County

Public Defender’s Office

Assistant Public Defender

1201 Franklin 13 th Flo or

Houston, Texas 77002

Daucie.Schindler@pdo.hctx.net

Tel: 713

- 368

- 0016

Fax: 713

- 368

- 9278

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was this day

electronically served on the Appel late Division of the Harris County District

Attorney ’ s Office and also on the o ffice of the State Prosecuting Attorney on October

21, 2015.

/s/ Daucie Schindler

Daucie Schindler
# C_2021128EN.01001301.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc (Romania) lodged on 4 January 2021 — Pricoforest SRL v Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

(Case C-13/21)

(2021/C 128/18)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pricoforest SRL

Defendant: Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul în Transportul Rutier (ISCTR)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the concept of ‘radius of up to 100 km’ referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a straight line drawn on the map between the base of the undertaking and the destination must be less than 100 km or as meaning that the distance actually travelled by the vehicle must be less than 100 km? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the concept of ‘radius of up to 100 km’ referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a straight line drawn on the map between the base of the undertaking and the destination must be less than 100 km or as meaning that the distance actually travelled by the vehicle must be less than 100 km?

| 2. | Are the provisions of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the carrying out of transport operations within the scope of that provision, some of which remain within a radius of 100 km from the base of the undertaking and others of which exceed that radius, in a period of one month, in the context of the exemption of the situation referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 from application of that regulation pursuant to a provision of national law, results in the exemption of all relevant transport operations from application of the regulation, or only those which [do not] [...] exceed the radius of 100 km or none of them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the provisions of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the carrying out of transport operations within the scope of that provision, some of which remain within a radius of 100 km from the base of the undertaking and others of which exceed that radius, in a period of one month, in the context of the exemption of the situation referred to in Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 561/2006 from application of that regulation pursuant to a provision of national law, results in the exemption of all relevant transport operations from application of the regulation, or only those which [do not] [...] exceed the radius of 100 km or none of them?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

---
# C_2022119EN.01001502.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/15

---

Appeal brought on 15 March 2021 by Sergio Spadafora against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Case T-130/19, Spadafora v Commission

(Case C-169/21 P)

(2022/C 119/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (represented by: G. Belotti, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, CC

By order of 25 January 2022, the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part and ordered Mr Sergio Spadafora to bear his own costs.

---
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 20 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- ---------------------------------

WD75429 Roger P. Karl, et al vs. Sylvia Conner, et al

WD75430 Consolidated with WD75429

WD76172 Vincent L. Bell vs. State of Missouri

WD76184 In the Interest of: C.J.T. vs. Juvenile Officer

WD76260 Edward Q. Brown vs. S tate of Missouri

WD76266 Martha Delores Clark vs. Linda A. Hodges and Jimmie Hodges

WD76449 Arlin Van Voorst vs. Vicky VanV oorst (Modified Pursuant to Rule

84.14)

WD76618 Midwestern Health Management, Inc., D/B/A Northwest

Financial Services vs. Byron G . Gorman and Lelonia Gorman

WD76731 Anissea Beth Lajeunesse vs. Mark Lajenuesse

WD76899 Howard Saunders vs. Steve Bowen D/B/A Steve Custom Builders;

Treasurer of the State of Missouri, Custodian of The Second Injury

Fund

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIR MED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -

WD76333 State of Missouri vs. Eric D. Bratton
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1195
<SECURITIES>                                        49
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3451
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1349
<INVENTORY>                                         94
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5429
<PP&E>                                           71179
<DEPRECIATION>                                   57858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   18923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           598
<OTHER-SE>                                       16137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     18923
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14424
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3187)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3187)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3187)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3187)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.68)


</TABLE>
258 La. 559

#### ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. GLAZER STEEL CORPORATION.

No. 51309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 3, 1971.

In re: Glazer Steel Corporation applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 244 So.2d 679.

Writs refused. The judgment is correct.
#### JOHN D. ANDERSON *vs.*CALEB NUTTER

An action for a freedom suit due by indenture of apprenticeship is within the j uris. diction of a justice of the peace.

Certiorari to Justice Lowber.

Record. *Nutter*vs. *Anderson.*Action for work and labor, and for *a freedom suit due by indenture of apprenticeship,*$20.

A copy of the indenture was sent up with the record. It was under seal and in the usual form ; and one of the covenants was “ to give said apprentice when free, a freedom suit of clothes of a tolerable good quality, over and above his common clothes.”

Trial by referees and judgment for plaintiff.

*301The exception taken to the record was, that this was not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace; but

*Frame,*for plaintiff in error.

*The Court*

said it was a contract for the delivery of a chattel, and within the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Robert Marshall LEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 11, 1971.

R. Bruce Jones, Jr., North Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs and record (oral argument having been waived) we find no error and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
#### JOHN RUTH *vs.*JAMES LUNNEY.

A justice of the peace cannot give judgment merely on the allegations of the parties; he must require *proof.*

Certiorari to Justice Robinson.

The action was on an order given by the supervisor of the roads to Lunney, on Ruth the collector, and the propriety of the judgment in the case depended on the question whether the order had been accepted. On the subject of proof, the record showed that no testimony was heard, and that the cause was decided by the justice on the “ allegations” of the parties. On this ground the judgment was

*Gray,*for plaintiff in error.

*Rodney,*for defendant.

Reversed.
H. Res. 58

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 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. 1) to grant family and temporary medical leave

under certain circumstances. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of

rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed three hours and twenty minutes,

with ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Education and Labor, ninety minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and twenty

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
2

HRES 58 EH

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 printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee

on Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the

amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution. The

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall

be considered as read. No amendment to the amendment in

the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by the

named proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read,

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in

the Committee of the Whole. 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
3

HRES 58 EH

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. At the end of section 101 add the following:

‘‘(14) SPOUSE.—The term spouse means a husband or

wife under the law of any State.’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14216]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Translational Research Program to Develop Novel Therapies 
and Devices for the Treatment of Visual System Disorders (R24).
    Date: July 25, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn, Bethesda 7301, Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-
2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#09636c68676c7d7d6c61496468606527676061276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b616e6a656e7f7f6e634b666a626725656263256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute, Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Cooperative Agreement Applications II.
    Date: July 25, 2018.
    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-
2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107a75717e7564647578507d71797c3e7e79783e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a505f5b545f4e4e5f527a575b535614545352145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-14216 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 427 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 427

    To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a 
   rollcall vote on passage of any measure making appropriations or 
                           providing revenue.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a 
   rollcall vote on passage of any measure making appropriations or 
                           providing revenue.

    Resolved, That rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new clause:
    ``7. The House shall not pass or adopt, as the case may be, any 
bill or joint resolution, or conference report thereon, making 
appropriations or providing revenue except by a rollcall vote, and the 
yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will beretained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

```

Date: August 12, 2004
```

```
 
```

```
/s/ John H. SottileJohn H. Sottile Chairman of the Board of Directors,        President and Chief Executive Officer
```

```
 
```

```
 
```
# C_2022222EN.01000602.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/6

---

Appeal brought on 16 August 2021 by Bálint Krátky against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 June 2021 in Case T-13/21 Krátky v European Parliament and Others

(Case C-503/21 P)

(2022/C 222/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Bálint Krátky (represented by: I. Kriston, ügyvéd)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission

By order of 22 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the costs.

---