alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SERVED APRIL**5~** 

## 2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. FAA DOCKET No. CP09GL0008 (Civil Penalty Action) DMS No. FAA-2009-0971 

### ORDER ONMOTIONS Respondent Recurrent Training Center, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") on March 23,2010, filed a Motion for Decision, arguing thatthe parties' submissions and governing law establish that no genuine issue offact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. On March 30, Complainant Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") countered Respondent's motion and filed its own Motion for Decision.

. Having read and consideredthe parties' respective motions, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1) Thehearing, currently scheduled to begin onApril 27, is continued until further order; 2) The parties shallfile an agreed-upon Statement ofFacts no later than April 23, 2010; 3) Complainant shall file an Opening Briefno later than May 7, 2010;2 4) Respondent shall file a Reply Briefno laterthan May 21, 2010; 5) Complainant, shouldit choose to do so, shall file a Response to Respondent's Reply Briefno later than May 28, 2010.

..... 6) Briefs shall discuss all relevant matters; however, the undersigned reserves the rightto convene a hearing on issues in dispute, includingthe amount ofany civil penalty to be imposed. SO ORDERED.

ichard C. GOOdW"'l

# r--­ U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service ListFAA DocketNo. CP09GL0008 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WI0001 

### ONE COpy Charles R. Barnett, III, Respondent's Counsel 1664 Moorland Lane Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 TEL: 815-356-8647 FAX: 815-356-7042 BrianaMorgan, Complainant's Counsel Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 TEL: 847-294-7313 FAX: 847-294-7498 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor Room E12-320 Washington, DC20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W;, Wilbur Wright**Building~Suite** 2WlOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-,430. I
[No. 300-3.

Division Three.

July 29, 1971.]

#### Edward G. Foster *et al., Respondents,*v. Jon K. Meyer *et al., Defendants,*United Pacific Insurance Co., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 195445, Ralph P. Edgerton, J., entered June 10, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
THE
  GOLDFIELD
  C O R P O R A T I O N

  100 RIALTO PLACE, SUITE 500             TELEPHONE    407 724-1700
  MELBOURNE, FLORIDA  32901               FAX          407 724-1703


  September 20, 1999



  Mr. John H. Sottile
  100 Rialto Place - Suite 500
  Melbourne, FL  32901

  Dear Mr. Sottile:

  Pursuant to a Resolution of the Board of Directors of  The Goldfield
  Corporation ("Goldfield"), adopted on January 15, 1985, Goldfield entered
  into an Employment Agreement with you. Subsequent amendments to this
  Resolution, the last dated September 15, 1995, have extended this
  Employment Agreement until December 31, 2005.

  The Board of Directors, on September 20, 1999 agreed to amend your
  Employment Agreement as follows:

     1.  Extend the term of your Employment Agreement until December 31,
         2009.

     2.  Amend Paragraph 10 to said Employment Agreement to read as follows:

          10.  Termination of Employment:   Goldfield may terminate
          your employment at any time upon thirty (30) days written
          notice to you; provided, however, that in the event Goldfield
          terminates your employment, Goldfield shall pay you within ten
          (10) days of such notice of termination an amount equal to the
          cash salary that you would have received in the absence of
          such termination from the date of such termination through
          December 31, 2009, and shall on the date of such termination
          commence payment of any retirement benefits.

  You and Goldfield agree that in the event of termination pursuant to this
  section, payment of the sums prescribed above shall constitute liquidated
  damages hereunder, and Goldfield shall have no further obligations to you
  under this letter agreement and you shall have no further obligations to
  Goldfield under this letter agreement.

  Sincerely,

  THE GOLDFIELD CORPORATION

                                                       Agreed to and accepted:

  By:   /s/                                            /s/
        Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President              John H. Sottile

  SRW/ps
256 La. 873

#### Ashton J. MOUTON, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. KLATEX, INC.

No. 50856.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Klatex, Inc. applying for certi-orari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 238 So.2d 1.

Writ refused. On the showing made by relator before us, the result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 239 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 239

 Urging the President to withdraw all United States Armed Forces from 
                                Somalia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1993

   Mr. Mica (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
Ramstad, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Crane, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Pombo, Mr. 
  Livingston, Mr. Lightfoot, and Mr. Zeliff) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Urging the President to withdraw all United States Armed Forces from 
                                Somalia.

Whereas United States Armed Forces made significant contributions to the United 
        States-led force in Somalia under Operation Restore Hope which 
        established a secure environment for the conduct of humanitarian relief 
        operations in Somalia;
Whereas over 25,000 United States troops were deployed under Operation Restore 
        Hope and several of such troops lost their lives;
Whereas, although originally projected to cost only $200,000,000 to 
        $300,000,000, the United States incurred nearly $800,000,0000 in costs 
        in connection with Operation Restore Hope;
Whereas on May 4, 1993 the United Nations assumed control of peacekeeping 
        operations in Somalia from the United States;
Whereas more than 4,000 American troops remain in Somalia and the deployment of 
        such troops incurs additional costs each and every day to the United 
        States; and
Whereas the United States is courting potential disaster in Somalia with 
        American troops being fired upon and suffering numerous casualties: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the President should withdraw all United States Armed Forces from 
Somalia.

                                 <all>
```
#### Barry WAIS, a/k/a Randy O’Day, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022318EN.01001301.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Clemente v Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

(Case C-192/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Failure to take into account the services provided by an interim civil servant who has become a career civil servant for the purpose of consolidating his or her personal grade - Assimilation of those services to those provided by a career civil servant - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Taking into account the period of service for the purpose of acquiring the status of career civil servant - Structure of the vertical progression of career civil servants under national legislation)

(2022/C 318/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr Clemente

Defendant: Comunidad de Castilla y León (Dirección General de la Función Pública)

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, precludes national legislation under which, for the purposes of consolidating a personal grade, account is not taken of services which a career civil servant provided as an interim civil servant before he or she acquired the status of career civil servant.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
#### In re ESTATE of Hettie HUNDERTMARK, Deceased. Helmuth ROTH, Herbert Roth, and Charlotte Hammerlein (nee Roth) a/k/a Charlotte Gertrude Roth-Hammerlein and Charles W. Burke, as Guardian ad Litem of Unknown Heirs-at-Law of Hettie Hundertmark, Deceased, Appellants, v. Inez HUNDERTMARK, W. D. Harkins, Edna S. Harkins, Richard S. Harkins, Rose Barney and Waynesburg College, Appellees.

No. 69-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 478 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 478

                   To recognize Mennonite Mutual Aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 1994

    Mr. Brown of Ohio submitted the following resolution; which was 
referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
                   To recognize Mennonite Mutual Aid.

Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States firmly 
        establishes that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free 
        exercise of religion;
Whereas the Mennonite Church has believed for more than 400 years that genuinely 
        Christian mutual aid must be practiced within a disciplined congregation 
        where individual responsibility for sharing is assumed;
Whereas Mennonite Mutual Aid (or ``MMA'') was established as an official program 
        board of the Mennonite Church;
Whereas MMA is responsible for mutual aid and stewardship programs and services 
        relating to health care that are in keeping with biblical imperatives of 
        sharing and compassion as interpreted by the Mennonite Church;
Whereas MMA is operated to reflect Mennonite beliefs and values which are 
        commonly shared;
Whereas MMA qualifies as a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(8) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
Whereas MMA bears the risk of insuring its own members and is subject to 
        regulation by the State insurance commissioner in each State in which it 
        sells coverage; and
Whereas MMA offers its members benefits, such as special help for costs not 
        included in standard health plans, premium assistance for members with 
        dependents who have mental or physical disabilities, and assistance with 
        adoption expenses: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That in any national health insurance reform legislation 
that provides for universal coverage, there be a provision that permits 
Mennonites to continue receiving their health coverage through 
Mennonite Mutual Aid.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10495.

#### The Farmers' Mill & Grain Co. *v.*De Franco.

Decided November 10, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Weed, Miller & Nason,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Clement V. Hull,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed.

Shauck, Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
## Pr opo s e d R u l e : M a n d a t o r y Re p o r t i n g o f G e o l o g i c S e q u e s t r a t i o n

M ee ti n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n I n t e r a g e n c y M ee ti n g

– D i s c u ss I n t e r a g e n c y C o m m e n t s, J a nu a r y 13

, 2010
D at e S ta ff C o n ta ct I n fo r m a ti o n ( N am e , e m a i l

, p h o n e # ) N am e of O r g a n i z a ti o n ( A tta c h l i s t of al l a tt e n d ee s

n am e s a n d

e mail s i f
p o ss i b l e ) S u m ma r y o f D i s c u ss i o n ( e

. g

. , a p p l i c a b il it y , r e p o r t i n g

r e q u i r e m e n t s , e t c .) W r i tt e n C o mm e n t s P r ov i d e d ? D i d t h e y al s o

s u b mit t o D o c k e t ? D at e s e n t t o E PA CC D

1 / 13 Su z i e K

o cc h i

, K o cc h i

. s u z ann e @ e

pa

. gov 202

- 343

- 9387 A g e n c i e s

a tt e nd i ng : E P A O M B DO E MM S C E Q A c on

f e r e n ce c a ll w

a s h e l d t o d i s c u s s i n t e r

ag e n cy

c o mm e n t s on t h e g e o l og i c s e qu e s t r a ti o n p r op o s a l Y

e s 1 /

11 / 10
#### Raymond Hershell KILPATRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-518.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 27, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# April 2020
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 74

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

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. HUTCHINSON 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.

1 Resolved, That rule XV of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is amended by inserting at the end

3 thereof the following new clause:

4 ‘‘7. The House shall not pass or adopt, as the case

5 may be, any bill or joint resolution, or conference report

6 thereon, making appropriations or providing revenue ex7 cept by a rollcall vote, and the yeas and nays shall be con8 sidered as ordered.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Don MITCHELL.

No. 62735.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Don Mitchell, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Terrebonne.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by review in the court of conviction.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6279

DAMON LOUIS WHEELOUS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-444-2) Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: September 13, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damon Louis Wheelous, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1998) as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wheelous v. Garraghty , No. CA-97-444-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### SHEARSON HAMMILL & COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Petitioner, v. Robert P. SCHWARTZ, Respondent. SHEARSON HAMMILL & COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. Robert P. SCHWARTZ, Appellee.

Nos. 71-546, 71-549.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1971.

John M. Manldn of Hill, Hill & Dicken-son, Tampa, for appellant and defendant-petitioner.

*235William R. Hapner, Jr., Tampa, for ap-pellee and plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied in Case No. 71-546; Order in Case No. 71-549 affirmed.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
No. 10520.

#### Driver et al., Trustees, etc., *v.*Thompson.

Decided November 17, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Allen count}".

*Messrs. Cable & Parmenter*and *Messrs. Barr & Jackson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Ridenour & Half hill,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spiauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 289

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 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. 2151) to amend the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, to establish the Maritime Security Fleet program, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 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 Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 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 Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in

the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of
2

HRES 289 EH

order against the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute 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. 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.
# C_2020279EN.01006302.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/63

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN)

(Case T-437/20)

(2020/C 279/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ULTRASUN — Application for registration No 17 898 794

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 in Case R 1453/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40707 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. G E R A R D O R A F A E L P E R E Z , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 09- C R
- 356- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orney ap poi n t ed t o represent G erardo R afael P erez ha s m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). P e r e z h a s file d a r e s p o n s e . T h e r e c o r d is in s u f f i c i e n tly devel op ed to al l ow c ons i der at i on att hi s t i m e o f Pere z ’ s c l ai m s of i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse l ; s uch c l ai m s gener al l y “ c annotbe r es olved on di r ec tappeal w h en [th eyh a ve ] n ot be en raised be fore th e d i stri ct co u rt sin ce n o op p ortu n i ty ex i sted to de ve l op the reco rd on th e m erits of th e al l eg a ti on s. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40707 Document: 00511064076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 40707

2 Ca n tw ell , 4 70 F. 3d1 08 7, 1 09 1 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 006) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) . Ouri nde pend en t revi e w o f t he r e c o r d, c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f, a nd Per e z ’ s r e s po ns e di s c l o s e s no no nf r ivo l o us i s s ue f

o ra ppe al . Ac c o r di ngl y, t he m ot i on f

or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r e s p o n s ib ilitie s h e r e in , a n d t h e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. P e r e z ’ s m o tio n fo rth e a p p o in tm e n t o f s u b s tit u te co u n s e l is D E N IE D . Cf. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

ag n er , 1 5 8 F .3d 9 0 1 , 9 0 2 -0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Case: 09-40707 Document: 00511064076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010