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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 577 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 577

Returning to the Senate S. 1216, to resolve the 107th meridian boundary 
      dispute between the Crow Indian Tribe and the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1994

     Mr. Gibbons submitted the following resolution; which was was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Returning to the Senate S. 1216, to resolve the 107th meridian boundary 
      dispute between the Crow Indian Tribe and the United States.

    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1216) entitled the ``Crow 
Boundary Settlement Act of 1994'', in the opinion of this House, 
contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of the first 
article of the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement 
of the privileges of this House and that such bill be respectfully 
returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020378EN.01004601.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/46

---

Action brought on 29 September 2020 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (DORMILLO)

(Case T-596/20)

(2020/C 378/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark DORMILLO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 451

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 2846/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 410 451 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the opponent as far as protection of international registration No 1 410 451 is refused for the European Union for all the contested goods and services of classes 20, 24 and 35;

| — | grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 410 451 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant protection for the contested international registration Dormillo No 1 410 451 for all contested designated goods and services for the territory of the European Union;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)b of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)b of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
257 La. 453

#### William M. SMITH v. Owen C. GIRLEY and the Travelers Insurance Co. et al.

No. 51063.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1971.

In re: William M. Smith applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Helena. 242 So.2d 32.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Limited to assignments of error 1, 2 and 3.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0339 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 051 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model SA.315B Alouette III, SE.3160 Alouette III, SA.316B Alouette I II, SA.316C Alouette I II, SA.319B Al ouette III, SA 3180 - ALOUETTE ASTAZOU, SA 318B - ALOUETTE ASTAZOU, and SA 318 C - ALOUETTE ASTAZOU Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 63 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : This purpose of this AD is to prevent temporary loss of tail rotor drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 13 for inspecting the free - wheel cage assembly $1,986 for modifying any affected free - wheel cage assembly Labor per Helicopter ( 8 x $ 8 5 /work - hour for the inspection) (8 x $85/work - hour for the modification) $ 680 $680 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter In spection Modification $ 693 $ 2,666 Total US Fleet Cost In spection $ 43,659 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Rao Edupuganti
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Anthony PESCE, Respondent.

No. 44945.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 19, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TYDARRIOUS D. KIRKLAND, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1028 

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 23, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Thomas P. Barber, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 99.4



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Elaine Bennett, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F Amendment No. 1 of Miramar Mining Corporation;



1.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



3.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | Elaine Bennett

Elaine Bennett
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022109EN.01001402.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 30 November 2021 — SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A. v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-725/21)

(2022/C 109/21)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SOMEO S.A., formerly PEARL STREAM S.A.

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred

| 1. | In order to classify an individual product as a ‘part’ of a seat for motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 94 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) in the versions applicable to the main proceedings, is it necessary for the seat to be incapable of carrying out its essential and principal function (in the sense of its being a functional unit) without that product, or is it sufficient for the individual part, which is intended solely to be attached to car seats, to be identifiable as part of a seat? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In order to classify an individual product as a ‘part’ of a seat for motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 94 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) in the versions applicable to the main proceedings, is it necessary for the seat to be incapable of carrying out its essential and principal function (in the sense of its being a functional unit) without that product, or is it sufficient for the individual part, which is intended solely to be attached to car seats, to be identifiable as part of a seat?

| 2. | Does the possibility of a general (non-)autonomous use of the two products at issue have an impact on whether they are classified (or not classified) under subheading 9401 90 80? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the possibility of a general (non-)autonomous use of the two products at issue have an impact on whether they are classified (or not classified) under subheading 9401 90 80?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

---
##### 



Purpose
  DEFINITIONS
        1




---



##### 



provided however
       2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



ADMINISTRATION
 Administration by Compensation Committee
 Committee Action
 4




---



##### 



Committees Powers
        PARTICIPATION
  5




---



##### 



BONUS AND RETENTION PAYMENTS
 Performance Bonus
 Retention Payment
 NONALIENATION
  UNFUNDED OBLIGATION
  6




---



##### 



REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
  CONDITIONS TO OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY
  PAYMENT OF OBLIGATION ABSOLUTE
  7




---



##### 



NO RIGHT TO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT
  TERM OF PLAN
  MISCELLANEOUS
 No Adverse Actions
 Simultaneous Transactions
 Recapitalization or Reorganization
   8




---



##### 



Construction of Agreement
 Amendment or Discontinuance
  Successors
  9




---



##### 



Taxes
 Indemnification of Committee
 Governing Law
 Headings
 Expenses of the Plan
 Date of Plan
 10
#### Roger D. NULL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-509, 71-510.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 10, 1971.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Frank H. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 446.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
# C_2023007EN.01002702.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Castel Frères v EUIPO — Shanghai Panati (Representation of Chinese characters)

(Case T-323/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing Chinese characters - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Alteration of the distinctive character)

(2023/C 7/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Castel Frères (Blanquefort, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shanghai Panati Co. (Shanghai, China)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 March 2021 (Case R 753/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Castel Frères to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Castel Frères to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 2.8.2021.

---
#### Damon McNAIR, as next friend of Patricia McNair, a minor, and Damon McNair, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Patrick Quinn, deceased, Appellant, v. The CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. O-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 23, 1971.

Costin & Moore, Port St. Joe, for appellant.

Isler, Welch, Bryant, Smith, Higby & Brown, Panama City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was plaintiff in the trial court, seeks reversal of an order rendered by the Circuit Court of Gulf County which confirmed an arbitration award by which plaintiff recovered damages in the sum of $2,500.00 as the next friend of Patricia McNair for the wrongful death of the latter’s 22-month-old child. Appellee has cross-assigned as error that portion of the order appealed which awarded appellant certain specified costs incurred by him during the arbitration proceeding. The primary thrust of the appeal challenges the adequacy of the verdict in light of the circumstances established by the evidence.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a final judgment or order of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Most, if not all, of the damages awarded plaintiff by the arbitrator were for pain and suffering experienced by the mother following the death of her infant child. It has been repeatedly held that this element of damage is impossible of accurate computation. Under the facts of this case it cannot be fairly said that the award of the arbitrator ignored the evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was induced by prejudice or passion or some misconception of the law.1 It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing *635that the trial court committed error or that its conclusions are erroneous.2

On the basis of Rutkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.3 we are impelled to reject the contention advanced by appellee in support of its cross-assignment of error.

The order appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS, and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. Radiant Oil Co. v. Herring (1941), 146 Fla. 154, 200 So. 376.

2

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965), 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe (Fla.App.1961), 125 So.2d 310.

3

.Rutkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (Fla.Api5.1967), 195 So.2d 221; Sellers v. Government Emxdoyees Insurance Company (Fla.App.196S), 214 So.2d 879.
Exhibit 32.2

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 March 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, AssistantSecretary and Chief Financial 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, thefinancial condition 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: May 13, 2005

/s/ Stephen R. WherryStephen R. Wherry Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer), Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and PrincipalAccounting Officer
EXHIBIT 10.19



THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

BNSFC 302606 Amendment 2

REGULATED TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT



|                           |  |                            
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Effective Date: 01-01-2001 |  | Expiration Date: 12-31-2013



|1. | INTRODUCTION
|-- | ------------



The parties to this Transportation Contract, as named below, desire to amend said Contract as stated herein, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. 10709.



CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

THE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY



|2. | TERM
|-- | ----



The term of this Contract is being amended and shall be effective on 01/01/2001 and shall remain in effect through 12/31/2013.



|3. | TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGREEMENT
|-- | --------------------------------



Amend Section 2.1 by deleting the first and second paragraphs and replacing said paragraphs with the following:



Liquidated damages will not apply on any annual tonnage deficit as outlined in Section 20,
Minimum Volume Requirement. In lieu of liquidated damages, any annual deficit tonnage under the minimum 1,400,000 metric tons will be added by way of additional yearly extensions of the contract, until such time as the deficit tonnage is
transported. For only this type of extension of the contract will the rates for any such yearly extension be subject to the RCAF (U) indices, which properly reflect actual yearly rail cost increases.



|4. | RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS
|-- | ---------------------



Nothing in this Amendment shall alter the rights or obligations of the parties, except as specifically provided for in the above. The terms and conditions of the Amendment will only apply to shipments tendered on or
subsequent to the effective date of this Amendment.



|5. | SIGNATURES
|-- | ----------



Intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed by their representatives as written below.



|                                  |  |                             
|--------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
|                                  | 
|By:                               |  | /s/    C. Lourenco Goncalves
|                                  |  |                             



DATE: 9/4/02



1



---

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY

BNSFC 302606 Amendment 2

REGULATED
TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT



|                                                     |  |                     
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
|                                                     | 
|By:                                                  |  | /s/    LONNIE WILSON
|                                                     |  |                     
|                                                     |  | AVP Constr. Products



DATE: 9/4/02



2
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1131

To extend the method of computing the average subscription charges under

section 8906(a) of title 5, United States Code, relating to Federal employee health benefits programs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17 (legislative day, JUNE 15), 1993

Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To extend the method of computing the average subscription

charges under section 8906(a) of title 5, United States

Code, relating to Federal employee health benefits programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF METHOD OF COMPUTING AVER4 AGE SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES FOR FEDERAL

5 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAMS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act entitled ‘‘An Act relating

7 to the method by which Government contributions to the

8 Federal employees health benefits program shall be com-
2

•S 1131 IS

1 puted for 1990 or 1991 if no Government-wide indemnity

2 benefit plan participates in that year’’, approved August

3 11, 1989 (5 U.S.C. 8906 note; Public Law 101–76; 103

4 Stat. 556) is amended in subsection (a)(1) by striking out

5 ‘‘contract years 1990 through 1993’’ and inserting in lieu

6 thereof ‘‘contract years 1990 through 1998’’.

7 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the

8 Congress that nothing in this section should be considered

9 to reflect any view on the appropriateness, merits, or tim10 ing, or any other aspect of any comprehensive health care

11 reform legislation.

Æ
No. 00-1041.

#### Panos *v.*New York.

County Ct., Warren County, N. Y. Certiorari denied.