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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 93

Electing Representative Sanders to the Committee on Banking, Finance and

Urban Affairs; and to the Committee on Government Operations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representative Sanders to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; and to the Committee

on Government Operations.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 is hereby, elected to the following standing committees:

3 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, FINANCE AND URBAN AF4 FAIRS: Bernie Sanders, Vermont.

5 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS: Bernie

6 Sanders, Vermont.

Æ
Exhibit  32
                              THE GILLETTE COMPANY
                                 Certification
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                              United States Code)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned  officers  of The  Gillette  Company,  a Delaware  corporation  (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information  contained
in the Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  November 4, 2003                   /s/ James M. Kilts
                                        ------------------------------
                                        James M. Kilts
                                        Chairman of the Board
                                        and Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 4, 2003                   /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Charles W. Cramb
                                        Senior Vice President
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Gillette Company and will be retained by The Gillette Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         35,769
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  82,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                   800
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               88,604
<PP&E>                                         3,887,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 238,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,972,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,601
<BONDS>                                        1,719,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    384,997
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,761,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,972,079
<SALES>                                        562,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               579,874
<CGS>                                          173,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                166,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            166,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,341)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   127,005
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.81


</TABLE>
#### THORP, BOSTWICK, REED & ARMSTRONG v. WEBSTER HALL CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

No. 7658.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

Bodman, Longley, Boyle, Middleton & Farley, of Detroit, Mich., for appellants.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, %nd SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On petition of Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, appellants, and upon stipulation of counsel, it is ordered that the appeal of Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong be, and the same is hereby, docketed and dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7777

HENRY GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY BROWN, Correctional Officer, 3rd Shift;DEZERREL WALKER, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, 3rd Shift, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-63-5-BO) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Henry Gilmore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gilmore v. Brown , No. CA-98-63-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70

Electing Representative Pelosi of California to the Committee on Standards

of Official Conduct.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representative Pelosi of California to the Committee

on Standards of Official Conduct.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be elect2 ed to the following standing Committee of the House of

3 Representatives:

4 STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: Nancy Pelosi,

5 California, to rank after Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,900
<INVENTORY>                                     22,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               273,700
<PP&E>                                       3,632,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,247,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,827,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          308,600
<BONDS>                                        764,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       448,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,827,700
<SALES>                                        904,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               904,500
<CGS>                                          267,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  554,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                308,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            194,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   194,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2021242EN.01000301.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy — Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 8 February 2021 — E.K., S.K. v D.B.P.

(Case C-80/21)

(2021/C 242/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy — Śródmieścia w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: E.K., S.K.

Defendant: D.B.P.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court finds that a contractual term is unfair not in its entirety, but only in the part thereof which renders the term unfair, as a result of which that term remains partially effective? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court finds that a contractual term is unfair not in its entirety, but only in the part thereof which renders the term unfair, as a result of which that term remains partially effective?

| 2. | Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court, having found that a contractual term is unfair, without which the contract could not continue in existence, may modify the remainder of the contract by interpreting the parties’ declarations of intent, in order to prevent the contract, which is beneficial to the consumer, from being invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation under which a court, having found that a contractual term is unfair, without which the contract could not continue in existence, may modify the remainder of the contract by interpreting the parties’ declarations of intent, in order to prevent the contract, which is beneficial to the consumer, from being invalid?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 11:13 AM

To: 'pjensen@entint.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Enterprise Integration, LLC (FAA-2015-2660)

Dear Mr. Jensen: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-2660). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by September 30, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00049

- CR

John Jeffrey Ramon

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 3179

- 08

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 5, 2015
#### Donald S. ANDREWS and the Hartford Insurance Group, Petitioners, v. Mildred L. ROBINSON and Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44194.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50422 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SAUL VALENZUELA-URIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-00-CR-385-ALL-F

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Saul Valenzuela-Urias appeals the 71-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Valenzuela-Urias complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Valenzuela-Urias argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of theNo. 01-50422 -2- evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Valenzuela-Urias thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Valenzuela-Urias acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). ValenzuelaUrias’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### In the Interest of V. D., a child.

No. 41041.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 10, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 273.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32


                   Certification Accompanying Periodic Report
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

The undersigned, Eric Claus, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M. Galgano, Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that (1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 29, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
the results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  January 8, 2009                              /s/ Eric Claus
                                                     --------------
                                                     Eric Claus
                                                     President
                                                     and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  January 8, 2009                              /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     Brenda M. Galgano
                                                     Senior Vice President,
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


                                       73
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20301 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VIDAL BANUELOS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-94-0242-04

- - - - - - - - - - July 16, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Vidal Banuelos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Banuelos agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal. Our review of the record shows that Banuelos knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his claims that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in imposing his sentence. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5thNo. 95-20301 -2- Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 244 (1994). It is not clear whether Banuelos has waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Henderson , 72 F.3d 463, 465 (5th Cir. 1995). However, the record is not sufficiently developed to address the ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). The appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Banuelos's right to raise the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue in an appropriate proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Casel , 995 F.2d 1299, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1368 (1994). APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000942136
<NAME> CRA MANAGED CARE INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,596,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,613,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,167,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,054,000
<PP&E>                                      20,906,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,016,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,128,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,709,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  76,489,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,128,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           179,652,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              147,747,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,439,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,213,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             770,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,267,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,166,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,101,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,101,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2022037EN.01000501.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/5

---

Appeal brought on 9 June 2021 by FCA Italy SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-191/20, FCA Italy v EUIPO

(Case C-360/21 P)

(2022/C 37/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: FCA Italy SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, E. Truffo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 9 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that FCA Italy SpA should bear its own costs.

---