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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 513

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       August 12, 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. 4906) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 
of 1974 to limit consideration of nonemergency matters in emergency legislation. 
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined 
to the bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
exceed one hour divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as 
read. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
and shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
amendments printed in the report are waived. If more than one of the amendments 
printed in the report is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be 
considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2022213EN.01003601.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/36

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 11 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG v E. Leinfelder GmbH, TL, SW, WL

(Case C-62/21) (1)

(2022/C 213/48)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Central Illinois Financial Co., Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
33-94096 and No. 333-27797 on Form S-8 of BankIllinois Financial Corporation
(formerly Central Illinois Financial Co., Inc.) of our report dated March 1,
1996, relating to the consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows of BankIllinois Financial Corporation
and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,1995, which report appears in
the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of BankIllinois Financial
Corporation.

KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP



St. Louis, Missouri
March 27, 1998
# IMMC.EESC-2023-01367-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2023-01367-00-01-AC-TRA-EN.docx

| OPINION |
| --- |
| European Economic and Social Committee |
| Limit values for lead and

  its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates |
| _____________ |
| Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates


  [COM(2023) 71 final – 2023/0033 (COD)] |
| |
| SOC/771 |

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Limit values for lead and

  its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates

_____________

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the limit values for lead and its inorganic compounds and diisocyanates

[COM(2023) 71 final – 2023/0033 (COD)]

SOC/771

EN

Referral

| Referral | European Commission, 13/02/2023


  Council, 08/03/2023


  European Parliament, 13/03/2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted at plenary | 22/03/2023 |
| Plenary session No | 577 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 197/0/3 |

Referral

European Commission, 13/02/2023

European Commission, 13/02/2023

Council, 08/03/2023

Council, 08/03/2023

European Parliament, 13/03/2023

European Parliament, 13/03/2023

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

22/03/2023

22/03/2023

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

577

577

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

197/0/3

197/0/3

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text, while respecting the position of social partners presented in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal.

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text, while respecting the position of social partners presented in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal.

Brussels, 22 March 2023

Brussels, 22 March 2023

Christa Schweng

Christa Schweng

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________

_____________
# C_2021338EN.01001201.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 June 2021 — Criminal proceedings against DD

(Case C-347/21)

(2021/C 338/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

DD

Questions referred

Is the right of the accused person to be present in person under Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, (1) read in conjunction with Article 10(1) and recital 44 thereof, safeguarded where a witness has been examined in the absence of the accused person at a separate hearing but the accused person had the opportunity to put questions to that witness at the subsequent hearing but stated that he or she had no questions, or is it necessary, in order to safeguard the right to be present in person, for that examination to be repeated in its entirety, including the questions put by the other parties who were present at the first examination?

Is the right to be defended by a lawyer under Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48, (2) read in conjunction with Article 12(1) thereof, safeguarded where two witnesses have been examined in the absence of the lawyer at two separate hearings but the lawyer was given the opportunity to put questions to the two witnesses at the subsequent hearing, or is it necessary, in order to safeguard the right of defence by a lawyer, for those two examinations to be repeated in their entirety, including the questions of the other parties from the first hearing, and, in addition, for the lawyer who was absent from the two previous hearings to be given the opportunity to ask his questions?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1).

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00351

- CV

Y UMIN Z HAO

, Appellant

V

.

T WO S TEPPIN T OWING , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at Law

No. 2

of Denton County ( CV

- 2021

- 00500

- JP )

October 20, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judg m ent of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Yumin Zhao shall pay all costs of this appeal, for

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### JOHN HOLLIS, d. b., *vs.*JOHN WILLIAMSON, p. b.

Justices of the peace have not jurisdiction in an action of trespass for an assault and battery.

Certiorari to Justice Bradley.

The exception was to the jurisdiction of the justice. It was an action of trespass, and the statement filed was,

Isaac Hollis, to John Williamson, Dr. 1837, to damages to the amount of $49, by wounding me so that I lost three months and a half of my labor, and the expense of surgical attendance.

*392The ease was tried by referees, and report and judgment for plaintiff' for $20.

*Wales,*for defendant below.

*The Court*

reversed the judgment on the ground that the justice had not jurisdiction of the matter mentioned in the statement; and ordered the justice to pay all the costs in the case.
#### Cumsie GIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Kenny Construction Company ) ) Under Contract No. DACW27-02-C-0025 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59756
Joseph S. Guarino, Esq. Christopher M. Burke, Esq.

Varela, Lee, Metz & Guarino, LLP Tysons Comer, VA Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Kimberly J. Sabo, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Chicago ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 25 July 2017

# ~___,~~

# ~ Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59756, Appeal ofKenny Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### Carlos LANGE, Appellant, v. COLLISION CLINICS INTERNATIONAL, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

Bernard A. Jackvony of Sciaretta & Jackvony, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Thomas E. Brandt of Law Offices of Donald R. Niles, Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, J., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

*1164ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

In this replevin action I think the trial court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment for the defendant, Collision Clinics International, after the property in question was returned to the plaintiff, Carlos Lange, during the pendency of the re-plevin action. Lange was entitled to a trial on damages.
#### In the Matter of Tevina W. Theresa T., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[656 NYS2d 731]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family-Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 28, 1995, finding that the subject child was neglected, *inter alia,*placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 28, 1995.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was neglected *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; § 1012 [f] [i]). Indeed, the testimony demonstrated, *inter alia,*that the mother’s behavior towards the child constituted conduct "requiring the aid of the court” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *see also, Matter of Baby Boy E.,*187 AD2d 512; *Matter of Danielle M.,*151 AD2d 240). Additionally, the dispositional order is in the best interests of the child *(see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Trudy I.] v Leona W.,*192 AD2d 602).

The remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### Fleet National Bank, Formerly Known as Norstar Bank of Upstate NY, Formerly Known as Mohawk National Bank, Respondent, v Laquidara, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[736 NYS2d 813]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered January 11, 2001 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

In February 1983, defendants Laquidara Construction, Inc., Aline H. Laquidara and Peter V. Laquidara (hereinafter collectively referred to as the guarantors), among others not relevant here, executed absolute, unconditional and continuing guaranties of payment of all present and future debts owed or to be owed by defendant Laquidara, Inc. to plaintiffs predecessor in interest. In December 1985, in connection with a $500,000 industrial. development agency loan, Laquidara Construction executed a mortgage on real property securing that indebtedness, as well as “any and all other obligations *931and liabilities now due and owing or which may hereafter be or become due and owing by [it] to [plaintiff].” After Laquidara, Inc. defaulted in the payment of a $1.5 million promissory note which was due and payable on June 30, 1991, plaintiff filed suit on August 7, 1998 seeking to hold the guarantors liable on their guaranties and to foreclose on the mortgage.

Ultimately, the guarantors moved for partial summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion and in response to the cross motion, the guarantors alleged that since the note at issue had been in default from its due date (notwithstanding significant subsequent partial payments by Laquidara, Inc.), the action was time barred *(see,*CPLR 213), and further that the mortgage was never intended to secure any debt other than the $500,000 industrial development agency loan. Supreme Court granted the cross motion. We now affirm.

Aside from the issue of the partial payments by Laquidara, Inc. (the latest being as recent as November 1997), the record reflects that the guarantors subscribed a forbearance and settlement agreement in August 1993 acknowledging the default on the $1.5 million note and setting forth new payment terms. Since the written acknowledgment of a debt and a promise to pay starts the statute of limitations to run anew *(see,*General Obligations Law § 17-101; *see also, Morris Demolition Co. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*40 NY2d 516, 521; *Sitkiewicz v County of Sullivan,*256 AD2d 884, 886, *appeal dismissed, lv dismissed*93 NY2d 908), this action was timely filed. We also see no basis for disregarding the clear language of the mortgage, which stands in contradiction to the guarantors’ argument that it was intended to be limited to securing only the industrial development agency loan.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the first quarter ended August 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: August 26, 2004



/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




                                       22
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely
in connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report 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 results of operations of the issuer.



/s/    THOMAS J. SHAWTHOMAS J. SHAW PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




/s/    DOUGLAS W. COWANDOUGLAS W. COWAN VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,219
<PP&E>                                          75,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                (36,385)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,015
<SALES>                                        258,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,194
<CGS>                                          174,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,752
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1063 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1063

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify 
          the treatment of a qualified football coaches plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 28 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr. Breaux) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify 
          the treatment of a qualified football coaches plan.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Qualified Football 
Coaches Plan Technical Corrections Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 100-202.

    Section 1022 of title II of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end there of the following new 
submission:
    ``(l) Qualified Football Coaches Plan.--For purposes of determining 
the qualified plan status of a qualified football coaches plan, section 
3(37)(F) shall be treated as part of this title and a qualified 
football coaches plan shall be treated as a multiemployer collectively 
bargained plan for purposes of title II of the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act of 1974''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall apply to years beginning after 
the enactment of Public Law 100-202.

                                 <all>
```