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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 428 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 428

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 19, 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. 2108) to make improvements in the Black Lung Benefits Act. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 401(b)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours (excluding time consumed by 
recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto). It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
4415. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Benjamin Francis GIDDINGS, Sr., father of the deceased minor, Benjamin Francis Giddings, Jr., Petitioner, v. SEIBELS, BRUCE & COMPANY, etc., and Reginald Edward Rutledge, Respondents.

No. 42766.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 103.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
#### John Donnelly, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Poliakoff, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February, 1913.)

Automobiles — damages for deprivation of use of — negligence.

Where, as a result of a collision with defendant’s truck, plaintiff’s automobile was injured, damages for the deprivation of its use while being repaired are not recoverable where it appears thát plaintiff has suffered no loss in his business and had another machine which he could use in place of the one injured.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York, borough of Manhattan, third district, rendered in favor of the-plaintiff in an action to recover for damage to the plaintiff’s automobile.

Kleiner *&*Kleiner, for appellant.

Conway, Williams & Kelly (D. Theodore Kelly, of counsel), for respondent.

Lehman, J.

The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for damages sustained by reason of a collision between his auto*251mobile and a truck owned by the defendant. These damages include not only the cost of repairs but also a sum allowed for deprivation of the use of the automobile during the time required for these repairs. It appears that the automobile was used in the plaintiff’s business but it does not appear in what manner it was used nor what profits were derived from its use. It further appears that, while the automobile was in the repair shop, the plaintiff hired no other automobile but used a second automobile belonging to himself. I do not think that under these circumstances any damages for the deprivation of the use of the automobile can be allowed.

A judgment for damages must be based upon definite proof, and not upon conjecture. Where an automobile has been injured, the court can award damages for the deprivation of its use while it was in the repair shop only where it is shown that the automobile was used for a business purpose or that another vehicle was hired to take its place. Bondy v. New York City R. Co., 56 Misc. Rep. 602; Foley v. Forty-second St. M. & St. N. R. R. Co., 52 id. 183. There is no claim here that any other vehicle was hired to take its place and the judgment, therefore, must stand or fall upon the proof that it was used in the plaintiff’s business. If damages are awarded because the plaintiff was deprived of the use of the automobile in his business, these damages must of course be based upon an estimate of loss to his business. There is, however, in this case no claim that the business has suffered any loss; in fact it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff suffered no loss in his business, for •he had another automobile which he could use in place of the injured automobile.

It follows that the damages are based upon an erroneous theory, and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Seabuby and Page, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Clark Hymas

ConAgra Foods, Inc. 

230514 South 100 Circles PRSW

Paterson, WA 99345

Dear Mr. Hymas:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 8, 2015, exemption request on behalf of ConAgra Foods, Inc. filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−2782, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Exhibit No. 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2005 filed the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gerber Scientific, Inc.



|Date:  August 25, 2005 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                   | 
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                       | Marc T. Giles
President and Chief Executive Officer | 



| | /s/ Jay Zager                                               | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Jay Zager
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer |
p130075.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0075 Focus Ready Draft 11/19/2012

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ AH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

Page 1p130075.eng

SAT (concerns) (11/09/2012): Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P1B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1ppb, amide SAR), XB Testing (Testing desired)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130075.eng

Page 3p130075.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0075

Page 4p130075.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0075

Page 5p130075.eng

Page 6p130075.eng

7
H. Res. 208

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 28, 1993.

Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

2491) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for

sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1994, and for other purposes, all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of

rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with

‘‘; $50,000,000 shall’’ on page 43, line 7, through ‘‘State

cost share’’ on line 25. Where points of order are waived

against only part of a paragraph, a point of order against

matter in the balance of the paragraph may be applied only

within the balance of the paragraph and not against the entire paragraph. Debate on the amendment specified in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution

to be offered by Representative Roemer of Indiana or a designee, and on any amendments thereto, may not exceed two

hours equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the
2

HRES 208 EH

amendment and an opponent. The amendments en bloc specified in the report to be offered by Representative Bereuter of

Nebraska or a designee and by Representative Solomon of

New York or a designee may amend portions of the bill not

yet read for amendment, shall be considered as read, and

shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question

in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### ISAAC GRIFFITH *vs.*JAMES JOHNSON’S Administrator.

An agent is liable to refund money paid to him by a mistake in fact, he being notified of the mistake before he paid the money over to his principal.

Naru. in assumpsit. Plea, the general issue, &c.

Action to recover back *money*paid by mistake of a fact. Johnson, as the agent of one Willey, collected a debt due from plaintiff *178by bond; and, in calculating the balance due, he took, by mistake, $61 49 more than was due. The mistake was discovered, and Johnson notified of it, before he had paid the money over to his principal.

A witness was called to prove the indorsement on the back of the bond, of sundry payments, in the hand-writing of Willey and of John? •son.

*179
      *Frame,*for defendant,

objected that the object was to prove the bond, which could not be done without calling the subscribing witnesses.

*Bates,*contra,

denied that the object was to prove the execution of the bond; the only purpose for which the witness was called *being to*prove the indorsement of credits or payments made towards the bond at sundry times; and the final calculation.

*Frame.*

It is apparent that the object is to prove the bond in this indirect and illegal manner. The action is for money *overpaid.*This cannot be shown by proof merely of the payments, without showing what the bond was. It must appear what was due, before it can appear that the sum due was overpaid.

*Bates,*for plaintiff.

*Frame,*for defendant.

*Per curiam.*

The witness may prove the endorsements, but that will not make the bond evidence, which must be proved in the usual way.

He afterwards proved an admission of the overpayment by Johnson to the amount claimed; and had a verdict under the direction of the court as to Johnson’s liability.

Verdict .for plaintiff.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), and Wayne Wetherell, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

1.                 The Company’s annual report on Form10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the ***“Report”***) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany at the end of the periods covered by the Report and the results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 

 
| Dated:   March  30, 2004 |                     |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|
|                                         |                     |                 |
| /s/ S.  James Miller                         |                     | /s/  Wayne Wetherell |   |
| S.  James Miller, Jr.                        | Wayne  Wetherell         |                 |
| Chief  Executive Officer                     | Chief  Financial Officer |                 |
|                                              |                          |                      |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 99



Supplemental Segment Information



|In thousands                       | Three Months Ended
 October 31, | Six Months Ended
 October 31,
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Orders Received:                   | 2004                            | 2003                         
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $  69,407                       | $  71,415                    
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 44,594                          | 38,971                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 17,305                          | 20,630                       
|                                   | $131,306                        | $131,016                     
|                                   | =======                         | =======                      
|                                   | October 31,2004                 | April 30,2004                
|Backlog:                           |                                 |                              
|Sign Making and Specialty Graphics | $      480                      | $     537                    
|Apparel and Flexible Materials     | 34,334                          | 30,957                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing         | 3,040                           | 4,371                        
|                                   | $ 37,854                        | $35,865                      
|                                   | ======                          | ======
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Pasquale A. Ambrogio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the third quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (Quarterly Report) of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (Registrant) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and that information contained in such Quarterly Report presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|Dated: |  | November 13, 2003                         
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Pasquale A. Ambrogio                  
|      
|Title: |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
S&S Aviation 1291 Runway Rd Winnsboro, SC 29 18 0 (803) 635

- 3086 October 19, 2011 Docket Management Facility US Department of Transportation 1200 New

Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sirs, S&S Aviation, Inc. hereby petitions for exemption from Part 120 of Titile 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) to all S&S Aviation, Inc. and Airborne Avi ation , Inc. to cover it’s safety sensitive em ploy ees under one drug and alcohol testing program. Both companies are owned by myself and co

- exist at the same location (Fair field County Airport, Winnsboro SC). Airborne Aviation, Inc. operates under FAR 145 (Cert. # V3QR738Y). The LOA for S&S Aviation, Inc. is on request with the SC FSDO in West Columbia, SC. Due to the small number of employees (5) and the fact that all but two serve in both capacities, there w ould be no reduction in safety involved. The public w ould be benefited by the reduction of redundant administrative burden as a whole. Similar exemptions have been issued for small companies such as ours, where many types of functions are combined due to a small market.
Thank you,

Brian Steed President, S&S Aviation , Inc. President, Airborne Aviation, Inc.
#### The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cleveland *v.*Juergens.

*Board of education*— Compensation *of cleric*— Section *4181, General Code-*— -Increase *during term*— Cleric *not an*“officer”— *Section*20, *Article II, Constitution.*

(No. 18254

Decided May 20, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. George W. Perry,*assistant director of law, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. William W. Dawson*and *Mr. Robert A. Graham,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed for the reason that the *668election of the defendant in error by the board of education of the city school district of the city of West P'ark, for the year 1922, as clerk of that board, did not confer upon him any function of sovereignty or constitute him an officer within the prohibition of Section 20, Article II of the Constitution of Ohio. The board of education under the power conferred by Section 4781, General Code, having in good faith fixed his compensation at the amounts which are here sought to be recovered, the receipt thereof by the defendant in error was not unlawful.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamakee, J., not participating.
# The following graph shows the number of generation management (GM) forms completed by a large

quantity generator (LQGs) for the 2011 Biennial Report cycle. As seen, a large percentage of LQGs

complete between 1 and 5 GM forms. At the other extreme, there a re several hundred LQGs, such as

laboratories and other research facilities that complete more than 40 GM forms.

# 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 35001357911131517192123252729313335373941-6081-100**# o** **f G** **e n** **e r** **a t** **o r** **s**



# # of GM Forms (2011 BR Data) 

# Number of GM Forms per F **acility**
#### ADAM HENCHMAN *vs.*JOSEPH ROBERTS and ELIZABETH ROBERTS.

Judgment against husband and wife set aside, because confesssed on a warrant of attorney given by the wife after marriage.

Rule to show cause why a judgment entered against husband and wife, should not be set aside because the warrant of attorney was given by the wife after marriage.

*Wales,*for plaintiff

*Booth,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said that the judgment against the wife was void, being confessed on a void authority, as a married woman cannot execute a letter of attorney; and the judgment being a joint one, must be set aside as against both.

Rule absolute.
# C_2023271EN.01000301.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2023 — Harry Shindler, Christopher David Randolph, Douglas Edward Watson, Michael Charles Strawson, Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Sarah Caroline Griffiths, James Graham Cherrill, Anita Ruddell Tuttell, Joséphine French, William John Tobbin v Council of the European Union

(Case C-501/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Decision (EU) 2020/135 - Nationals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Consequences of that agreement on the status of citizen of the European Union and the rights attaching to that status for those nationals - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Conditions - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2023/C 271/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Harry Shindler, Christopher David Randolph, Douglas Edward Watson, Michael Charles Strawson, Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Sarah Caroline Griffiths, James Graham Cherrill, Anita Ruddell Tuttell, Joséphine French, William John Tobbin (represented by J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Harry Shindler, Mr Christopher David Randolph, Mr Douglas Edward Watson, Mr Michael Charles Strawson, Ms Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Ms Sarah Caroline Griffiths, Mr James Graham Cherrill, Ms Anita Ruddell Tuttell, Ms Joséphine French and Mr William John Tobbin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Harry Shindler, Mr Christopher David Randolph, Mr Douglas Edward Watson, Mr Michael Charles Strawson, Ms Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Ms Sarah Caroline Griffiths, Mr James Graham Cherrill, Ms Anita Ruddell Tuttell, Ms Joséphine French and Mr William John Tobbin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
#### Excell POTTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-611.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

*509Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., TaHahas-see, and Robert J. Landry, Asst Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446; Fla.Stat. § 776.011 (1971), F.S.A.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.