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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 79

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. STARK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia in the first session of

the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia

3 (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Commit4 tee’’), including expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 79 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $342,035.

6 (b) Not more than $8,000 of the amount specified

7 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re8 ferred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not more

9 than $1,000 of such amount may be used for specialized

10 training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

11 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

12 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

13 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit14 tee on House Administration.

15 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu16 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

17 period beginning at noon at January 3, 1993, and ending

18 immediately before noon on January 3, 1994.

19 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

20 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre21 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         125,699
<SECURITIES>                                    33,756
<RECEIVABLES>                                  566,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    350,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,116,323
<PP&E>                                      23,095,487
<DEPRECIATION>                            (16,133,561)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,229,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          968,649
<BONDS>                                      1,590,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,304,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,229,668
<SALES>                                      1,849,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,880,900
<CGS>                                        1,145,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,107,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (322,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (312,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (312,066)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020247EN.01003201.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/32

---

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — Arias Mosquera and Others v SRB

(Case T-303/20)

(2020/C 247/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: José María Arias Mosquera (Madrid, Spain) and 28 other applicants (represented by: P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruíz de la Torre Esporrín, A. Menéndez Menéndez and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A.

| — | order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-302/20, Del Valle Ruiz and Others v Single Resolution Board.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


                          ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER


May 14, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated May 13, 2002 on our review of the condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Global Marine Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") as of and for the period ended March 31, 2002, and
included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2002, is incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-45908) of the Company.

Very truly yours,


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets for  CIMARRON-GRANDVIEW GROUP,  INC.  at March 31,1999, the Statements of
Income for  the year ended March 31, 1999,  and is  qualified in its entirety by
reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         144,458
<SECURITIES>                                    14,641
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,099
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       693,949
<OTHER-SE>                                    (535,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,120
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,120
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00






</TABLE>
#### James Robert LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 7489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 8, 1967.

James F. Snelling, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case has been carefully examined and no reversible error appears, therefore, the judgment of the circuit Court is

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., PIERCE, J., and SMITH, D. C., Associate Judge, concur.
H. Res. 395

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 23, 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. 4092) to control and prevent crime. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

against the bill and against its consideration 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 the Judiciary.

After general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise

without motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be

in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds

vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the

same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect

to a resolution reported on or before the legislative day of
2

HRES 395 EH

March 23, 1994, providing for further consideration or disposition of the bill.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Bette C. COOPER, Appellant, v. James R. LYTLE, Appellee.

No. 71-1302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 1, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023164EN.01000602.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du canton de Forest — Belgium) — ZG v Beobank SA

(Case C-351/21, (1) Beobank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of laws - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Article 47(1)(a) - Information for the payer after receipt of the payment order - Articles 58, 60 and 61 - Payment service provider’s liability for unauthorised transactions - Obligation of that service provider to refund unauthorised transactions to the payer - Framework contracts - Obligation of that service provider to provide that payer with information relating to the payee concerned)

(2023/C 164/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du canton de Forest

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZG

Defendant: Beobank SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 47(1)(a) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC

must be interpreted as meaning that a payer’s payment service provider is required to provide that payer with information enabling the natural or legal person who benefited from a payment transaction debited from that payer’s account to be identified and not only the information which that provider, after making its best efforts, has available with regard to that payment transaction.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
# C_2021019EN.01006101.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/61

---

Action brought on 9 November 2020 — Sam McKnight v EUIPO — Carolina Herrera (COOL GIRL)

(Case T-670/20)

(2021/C 19/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sam McKnight Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carolina Herrera Ltd (New York, New York, United States)

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 COOL GIRL — Application for registration No 16 681 975

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2020 in Case R 689/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case Carolina Herrera joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case Carolina Herrera joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### STATE *vs.*RECORDS.

Bowling alleys connected with taverns are unlawful, though the players only risk the price of the game.

The defendant, a tavern keeper, was indicted for a misdemeanor in suffering a game of chance to be played about his house on which money was betted.

Court.

—By the common law, games of hazard were not prohibited, though gambling was; and gambling consisted in playing for such stakes, as, added to the amusement, made the consequences dangerous to society. *(Hawk. P. C. b. 1, ch.*92, § 1; 1 *Russ.*506.) Our legislature have chosen to prohibit tavern keepers from allowing not merely gambling, but any kind of game, if money, liquor, or other thing is betted, from being played in or about their houses. The amount of the bet has nothing to do with the legal offence; if any thing of value be betted with the permission of the inn-keeper, it is a violation of the law. If the compensation for the use of the bowling alley be made to depend on the result of the game, and the inn-keeper permit the game to be played with a knowledge of this risk, it is a violation of the law.

Verdict, guilty.
#### PAN AMERICAN ALUMINUM CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ALINEX CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Andres Murai, Appellees.

No. 72-903.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1973.

Worley & Gautier, Miami, for appellant.

*291Paul, Landy, Beiley & Bartel and James Gilbride, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the rule stated in Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); Belcher Towing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 456.
#### Maria Domino JOHNSON v. Josephine DOMINO.

No. 53889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: Josephine Domino applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the court of appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 280 So.2d 633.

Writ denied. There is no error of law in the judgment. .
# C_2023094EN.01000801.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2023 — European Parliament v Fernando Carbajo Ferrero

(Case C-613/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Procedure for appointment to a post of Director - Vacancy notice and recruitment notice - Rejection of the candidate’s application and appointment of another candidate - Irregularity in the recruitment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Transparency - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 94/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles, R. Schiano and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Fernando Carbajo Ferrero. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Fernando Carbajo Ferrero.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 11

                                     GIANT GROUP, LTD.
                                    EARNINGS PER SHARE
             for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1996 (3)
                                        (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      
                                                               3 Months        9 Months
                                                                Ended            Ended
                                                             September 30,   September 30,
                                                                1996             1996
                                                              ----------       ----------
                                                                   ($ In thousands,
                                                                except per share amounts)
<S>                                                          <C>               <C>

Earnings applicable to common stock (3):

   Net income for the period                                  $   1,539         $ 14,141
   Income earned on investment of remaining proceeds       
      from exercise of stock options, after Company's
      acquisition of common stock (1)                                85               67
                                                             -----------       ----------
                                                              $   1,624         $ 14,208 
                                                             ===========       ==========
                                   
Average weighted number of common shares and common
    equivalent shares:

   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       3,779,255        4,242,702
   Additional shares assuming conversion of stock 
     options (2)                                              1,108,101        1,001,512
                                                             -----------      -----------
                                                              4,887,356        5,244,214
                                                             ===========      ===========

Earnings per common share and common
   equivalent shares                                              $0.33            $2.71 
                                                             ===========      ===========



(1) Assuming funds were invested in U.S. government short-term obligations 
    earning interest at 5%.

(2) Reflects the 20% limit required by APB No. 15 for reacquisition of
    shares.  Excess proceeds from exercise of stock options have been
    assumed to be invested in short-term government securities (see (1)).

(3) The 1995 calculation of earnings per share excludes the Company's 
    stock options as their effect would be anti-dilutive and is not 
    presented.  The calculation of earnings per share for 1995 can be 
    made from information presented in the consolidated statement of 
    operations.

</TABLE>
# Evidence and evaluation

## Providing GSA a framework for making informed decisions

We are committed to ensuring a strong culture of evaluation, evidence building, and learning. Consistent with the Foundations for Evidence Based Policymaking Act of 2018, we generate and use rigorous evidence to inform policy and programmatic decisions. Evaluation activities and results inform decisions across the agency, better enabling us to meet our mission to deliver value and savings in real estate, acquisition, technology, and other mission-support services across the government.

Evidence-informed decision making drives impact, improves business value and value for the customer, and maximizes the reach of resources. A culture of evidence-driven decision making is nurtured in organizations that have robust capacity to not only build evidence but also to use evidence in making strategic decisions.

Questions? Contact us at evaluation@gsa.gov.

## Evidence and evaluation policy

Our evaluation policy is designed to bring clarity to the principles and standards that govern our evaluation practices. The policy is grounded in core principles that provide guidance in understanding what works and how we can improve our practices through the insights gained from evaluation.
                            - Evaluation policy
                            - Learning agenda and annual evaluation plans
                            - Capacity assessment

## Results

Below are summaries of the results of our evaluations:
                            - Customers’ interest and experience with federal coworking sites [PDF - 631 KB]
                            - Customers’ needs for federal coworking [PDF - 241 KB]
                            - Demand for home office solutions [PDF - 215 KB]
                            - Hybrid work patterns of GSA employees [PDF - 259 KB]
                            - Implementation lessons from early rollout of federal coworking [PDF - 197 KB]
                            - Utilization of child care centers in GSA facilities [PDF - 290 KB]

## How we promote evidence

The Evaluation Division is committed to helping GSA make evidence-based decisions that better serve the public. We provide teams with the following, to develop effective evaluation strategies and enable learning from data:
                            - Internal consultation
                            - End-to-end evaluation support
                            - Workshops

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### BUDDY BRAUN CHEVROLET-CADILLAC, INC., a Florida corporation and Ken Viano, Appellants, v. LONGJOHN, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Virginia Lee LaROCHE, formerly Virginia Lee Von Klock, Appellant, v. Nicholas Eric VON KLOCK, Appellee.

No. 70-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 00-1007.

#### Mississippi State University *v.*Vadie.

C. A.' 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.