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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 466 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 178

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 466

                          [Report No. 103-564]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4649) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
 District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 178
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 466

                          [Report No. 103-564]

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4649) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
 District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 1994

    Mr. Gordon, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4649) making 
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other 
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said 
 District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That all points of order against consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, are waived. During 
consideration of the bill, all points of order against provisions in 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
```
#### MARTIN GMC TRUCKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Homer WHITE, d/b/a White Construction & Equipment Rental, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6503.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1978.

Rehearings Denied July 5, 1978.

Raggio, Farrar, Cappel & Chozen, Thomas L. Raggio, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant, General Motors Corp.

Maurice L. Tynes, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant, Martin G.M.C. Trucks.

W. Ellis Bond, Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Carwile & Barsh, Karl E. Boellert, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

WATSON, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Docket # 6504, John H. White, d/b/a *White Construction & Equipment Rental Company v. Martin GMC Trucks, Inc., et al.,*handed down this date, 359 So.2d 1094, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Costs are taxed against plaintiff-appellant.

AFFIRMED.

DOMENGEAUX, J., concurs in the result.
SUPERIOR COURT

of the 

STATE OF DELAWARE

Jeffrey J Clark Kent County Courthouse

Judge 38 The Green

 Dover, DE 19901

Telephone (302)735-2111

March 1, 2017

Edward C. Gill, Esq. David C. Malatesta, Jr., Esq.

Law Office of Edward C. Gill, & Associates Kent & McBride, P.C.

16 North Bedford Street 824 North Market Street

Georgetown, DE 19947 Suite 805

Wilmington, DE 19801

Monica E. O’Neill, Esq.

Four Penn Center

1600 JFK Blvd., Suite 620

Philadelphia, PA 19103

RE: Robert Bangs v. Diana & Dawn Follin

K15C-05-008 JJC

Counsel:

This premise liability matter was tried by a jury during the week of January 23,

2017. Defendants, as the prevailing parties, seek recovery of costs pursuant to

Superior Court Civil Rule 54. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ motion for costs

and the Plaintiff’s response. While the majority of the costs sought in this case are

unopposed, Plaintiff objects to the award of expert fee reimbursement for the

Defendants’ liability expert, Mr. Hrobak. Section 8906, of Title 10, Delaware Code

provides for the inclusion of expert fees in an assessment of costs after trial. Plaintiff

objects, however, alleging a lack of detail submitted by the Defendants in support of

the request.
The Court agrees that the invoice submitted does not sufficiently detail or

support the expert fees sought. The burden is on the prevailing party to justify and

substantiate the award of costs by both hourly rates (testimony versus travel) and

specification as to the amount of time spent.1 Here, the invoice does not itemize 

hourly rates applicable to trial or travel, or offer a breakdown between trial testimony

and travel time. As the prevailing party, Defendants are permitted these costs at the

discretion of the Court,2but must furnish the Court with an itemization by rate and

time spent before such expenses will be awarded. Accordingly, the Court will defer

its award of costsin this case to permit the Defendants time to supplement their motion

with sufficient detail to justify the award of expert fees for Mr. Hrobak’s trial

testimony, as well as his travel time to and from Court.

Expert fees for the testimony for the Defendants’ medical expert, Mr. Hrobak’s

mileage and meal expense, and court costs are allrecoverable in this case in the amount

requested. If Defendants continue to seek expert fee reimbursement for Mr. Hrobak,

they must furnish the Court with sufficient substantiation for these fees by no later than

March 9, 2017. Thereafter, if opposed, Plaintiff must respond by no later than March

16, 2017. At the conclusion of the submission, the Court will issue an order of final

judgment, inclusive of awardable costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jeffrey J Clark

Judge

1 Russo v. Medlab Clinical Testing, Inc., 2001 WL 34082277, at *4 (Del. Super. Nov. 14,

2001).

2

See Dunning v. Barnes, 2002 WL 31814525 (Del. Super. Nov. 4, 2002) (recognizing the

discretion afforded the Court in such an award).

2
No. 00-1008.

#### Turnbow-Garlington *v.*English et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Emile GRANT and Albert Dixon v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53343.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 20, 1973.

In re: Emile Grant and Albert Dixon applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order.

Writ denied. Find no error in ruling of trial court.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs in the denial but only for the reason that relator had not *specified*the documents desired in under the subpoena duces tecum. It is relator’s obligation to determine and specify the documents he desires subpoenaed.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ.,

concur in the denial. C.Cr.P. 732 requires the subpoena be issued if the documents are described and identified. However, the clerk and D. A. are not required to research the public records for the applicant.
#### Elizabeth FREEMAN, Appellant, v. Roberta CORBIN, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Brewer Corbin, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

Papy, Levy, Carruthers & Poole, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Ralph F. Miles, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final order sustaining a motion to dismiss a complaint which primarily sounded in equity, because of a finding by the trial judge that the Statute of Limitations, provided in § *733.-*211, Fla.Stat. F.S.A., prevented the maintenance of the action.

Normally, statutes of limitations are not applicable to equity cases; they are subject to a laches plea. However, we find that the cited statute is not applicable to the instant case because there is no showing that any claim was ever filed in the estate proceedings involved in this matter. And, we fail to find from the complaint that laches is shown on the face thereof. Flye v. Jeffords, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 229; Volpicella v. Volpicella, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 231.

Therefore, the trial judge was in error in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and the matter is hereby reversed and returned to the trial court for further proceedings.1

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

1

. State v. Byington, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 164; § 733.51, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Rule 5.340, Florida Probate and Guardianship Rules.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

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

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Mackie Designs Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Garrard,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | By:    |    /s/ William A. Garrard                                                                  |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   | William A.  Garrard                                                                                  |
|                           |   | *Vice President, Finance and Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer)* |
|                                |        |                                                                                                      |        |  |

 

----
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 463

Requiring that LEGIS and TLS information be made available to the public

on the Internet.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 23, 1994

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. HORN, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. FURSE, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. CONYERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Rules

RESOLUTION

Requiring that LEGIS and TLS information be made

available to the public on the Internet.

1 Resolved, That the Committee on House Administra2 tion shall take such action as may be necessary to make

3 all information from the Legislative Information and Sta4 tus Service (LEGIS) and the Text of Legislation Service

5 (TLS) available to the public on the Internet. The require6 ment of the preceding sentence shall be carried out not

7 later than 30 days after the date on which this resolution

8 is agreed to.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 79 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 79

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
        in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Stark submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
        in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on the District of Columbia (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $342,035.
    (b) Not more than $8,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $1,000 of such amount may be used for 
specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon at January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. §1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 OF the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Endocardial Solutions, Inc. Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James W. Bullock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | /s/JAMES W. BULLOCKJames W. Bullock Chief Executive
OfficerApril 10, 2003
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Gayle Rae (Brown) MARDEN, Petitioner, v. Honorable Dixie Herlong CHASTAIN, as Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Respondent.

No. 36371.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 14, 1968.

Tobias Simon, Miami, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Stirrup and Thomas & Stirrup, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari because of an apparent conflict between the instant decision and the decision of this Court in State ex rel. York v. Beckham, 160 Fla. 810, 36 So.2d 769 (1948). We initially felt that it would be necessary to consider the case at bar in view of apparently conflicting holdings in Beckham and our later decision in In re Rouse, 66 So.2d 42 (Fla.1951). See Billingham v. Thiele, 109 So.2d 763 (Fla.1959). We have now concluded that Beckham and Rouse are reconcilable and it is not necessary to accept one and reject the other. We therefore find that the instant writ was improvidently granted and that it should be discharged on the authority of In re Rouse, supra.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., DREW, THOR-NAL and ERVIN, JJ., and WHITE, Circuit Judge (Retired), concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14613]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Availability for Non-Exclusive, Exclusive, or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Patent Concerning System and Method for Rapid 
Dissemination of Image Products

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, 
announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention 
set forth in U.S. Patent No. 9,106,715 titled ``System and Method for 
Rapid Dissemination of Image Products,'' issued on August 11, 2015. The 
United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, 
has rights in this invention.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, 
SDMC-JA, Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, 
email: [email protected] (256) 955-3213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention pertains to rapid 
dissemination of image products. A data consumer display device sends a 
geospatial request for a map image of a specific area of interest to a 
rapid image distribution system (RIDS), which forwards the request to a 
sensor ground station. The sensor ground station processes data 
received from a sensor platform and sends the processed data to a 
georectification processor. The georectification processor creates 
georectified data and sends the georectified data to the RIDS, which 
further processes the data, exposing it to data consumers using network 
optimized data services (e.g., KML/KMZ, TMS, GeoRSS, image chipper) 
based on geographic coordinates provided in the query that is a smaller 
subset of the sensor data. The RIDS sends the image product to the data 
consumer display device for display.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-14613 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
```
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Herbert KUPPERSMITH, Petitioner, v. Hon. M. Daniel FUTCH, Jr., Judge of the Court of Record, in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 23, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1287

(Reexamination No. 90/006,932)

IN RE ARVINMERITOR, INC.

Theodore W. Olds III , Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P. C., of Birmingham, Michigan,

argued for appellant. With him on the brief was David J. Gaskey

.

Nathan K. Kelley , Associate Solicitor, Office of t he Solicitor, United States Patent

and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virgin ia, argued for the Director of the United

States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen

, Solicitor, and William LaMarca , Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas W. Krause

, Associate Solicitor.

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1287

(Reexamination No. 90/006,932)

IN RE ARVINMERITOR, INC.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United Stat es Patent and Trademark Office

Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences

in CASE NO(S). 90/006,932.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MAYER, PLAGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges )

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED December 11, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
# C_2021391EN.01000901.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 June 2021 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C; Other parties: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-402/21)

(2021/C 391/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, E, C

Other parties: S, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Turkish nationals who have the rights referred to in Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 (1) still rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Turkish nationals who have the rights referred to in Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 (1) still rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80?

| 2. | Does it follow from Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 that Turkish nationals can no longer rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 if, due to their personal conduct, they represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it follow from Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 that Turkish nationals can no longer rely on Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 if, due to their personal conduct, they represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society?

| 3. | Can the new restriction whereby the right of residence of Turkish nationals may be terminated even after 20 years on grounds of public policy be justified by reference to the changed social perceptions which gave rise to that new restriction? Is it sufficient that the new restriction serves the public policy objective, or is it also required that the restriction be suitable for achieving that objective and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it? Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the new restriction whereby the right of residence of Turkish nationals may be terminated even after 20 years on grounds of public policy be justified by reference to the changed social perceptions which gave rise to that new restriction? Is it sufficient that the new restriction serves the public policy objective, or is it also required that the restriction be suitable for achieving that objective and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it? Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council

---

(1)  Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the EEC and Turkey.

---
No. 11186.

#### The Empire Coal Mining Co. *v.*George.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Belmont county.

*Mr. S. M. Douglass; Mr. A. FI. Mitchell*and *Mr. W. Clyde Grubbs,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James C. Toll-man; Mr. E. E. Clevenger*and *Mr. Fred Spriggs,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers and Price, JJ., concur.