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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1093

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the special rule

for treatment of foreign trade income of a FSC attributable to military

property.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 10, 1993

Mr. DURENBERGER (for himself, Mr. DANFORTH, and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the special rule for treatment of foreign trade income

of a FSC attributable to military property.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR FOREIGN

4 TRADE INCOME OF A FSC ATTRIBUTABLE TO

5 MILITARY PROPERTY.

6 (a) REPEAL.—Section 923(a) of the Internal Reve7 nue Code of 1986 (defining exempt foreign trade income)

8 is amended by striking paragraph (5) and by redesignat9 ing paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
2

•S 1093 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to transactions occurring after De3 cember 31, 1993, in taxable years ending after such date.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,389,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,389,144
<PP&E>                                      97,048,884
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,930,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,650,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,811,269
<BONDS>                                     38,898,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,940,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,650,329
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,384,088
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,739,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                89,570
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,715,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,839,927
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,839,927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,839,927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   134.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   134.14
        

</TABLE>
#### THOMAS MILNER *vs.*BAINTON & BANCROFT.

“We certify that we are hound to pay” is a promise to pay.

Assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit; payment, discount and act of limitations.

The narr contained two counts on a special promise in writing, to pay Milner $80, &c., and the common money counts. The plff. gave in evidence this paper:—

*“8th December*1830.

This is to certify that we are bound to Thos. Milner, in the sum of eighty dollars on account of money included in John Simpson’s bond to us. As witness our hands this 8th Dec. 1830.

BAINTON & BANCROFT.”

The deft, moved a nonsuit on the ground that this paper did not support the declaration. The declaration states a promise to pay; this paper contains no such promise.

*Wales,*for plaintiff.

*Hamilton,*for defendant.

*The Court*

refused the nonsuit. The paper is set out merely according to substance and legal effect. The acknowledgment of defts. that they were bound to pay, is equivalent to a promise to pay.

Verdict for plaintiff.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1201 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1201

    To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost share 
 assistance to construct reservoir structures for the storage of water 
                in rural areas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Heflin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide cost share 
 assistance to construct reservoir structures for the storage of water 
                in rural areas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COST SHARE ASSISTANCE FOR RESERVOIRS FOR RURAL WATER SUPPLY.

    (a) In General.--The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act 
is amended by inserting after section 3A (16 U.S.C. 1003a) the 
following new section:

``SEC. 3B. COST SHARE ASSISTANCE FOR RESERVOIRS FOR RURAL WATER SUPPLY.

    ``(a) In General.--Subject to the other requirements of this 
section, the Secretary may provide the Federal share of the cost of 
constructing a reservoir structure for the storage of water to increase 
the water supply in a rural area. The Federal share shall be not less 
than 50 percent, as determined by the Secretary.
    ``(b) Limitation.--The cost of increasing the water supply of a 
rural area in connection with a project assisted under subsection (a), 
excluding the cost of constructing main water transmission lines, may 
not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
    ``(c) Purpose.--In order to qualify for assistance under this 
section, a project must increase the supply of water in an agricultural 
or rural community in a rural area that is experiencing a severe 
problem with the quality or quantity of water.
    ``(d) Rural Area.--As used in this section, the term `rural area' 
means any area other than an area within a standard metropolitan 
statistical area (based on the most recent decennial census of the 
United States).''.
    (b) Definition of Works of Improvement.--Section 2 of such Act (16 
U.S.C. 1002) is amended by striking ``Each project must contain'' and 
all that follows through ``benefits of the project.''.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2023104EN.01003001.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Brobet v EUIPO — Efbet Partners (efbet)

(Case T-772/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark efbet - Genuine use of a mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2023/C 104/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brobet ltd. (Ta’Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: N. Lamsters and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Efbet Partners OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2021 (Case R 624/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brobet ltd. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brobet ltd. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
#### Haskel LIBERMAN and Leatrice Liberman, Petitioners, v. GABLES LIGHTING FIXTURE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 42022.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 16, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 709 of the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority to submit, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, the report required under section 709 of the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-323) (the “Act”), as amended.

The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any provision of any future public law that is the same or substantially the same as section 709 of the Act.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register.*

[FR Doc. 2018-14485

Billing code 4710-10-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.M.,

Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-3326

[December 14, 2023]

Appeal from the School Board of Broward County; L.T. Case No. SE2021-22-305.

Nathan Soowal, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Hudson C. Gill of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & 

Hochman, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cbo*:e^ ^\ C 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIAtlON ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ALCA, Inc. et al 

V. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Complainants 

Respondent 

FAA Docket 16-08-05 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the Director's 

initial determination will be rendered in the above-referenced case to December 11,2009. 

An extension is necessary because the Agency requires additional time to review 

information it believes is essential for a fair and complete hearing of the matter. 

'-/ 

landall S. Fiertz 

Director of Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 

GrJ. AG^;ir^ 

Date 

C 5 

-I - CI 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October B^ , 2009,1 caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) or personally delivered, a true copy of 

the foregoing docimient addressed to: 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., P.A. 

15271 NW 60*^ Avenue 

Suite 206A 

Miami Lakes, FL 33014 

Counsel for Complainants 

David M. Murray 

Thomas P. Abbott 

Assistant County Attorneys 

Aviation Division 

P.O. Box 025504 

Miami, FL 33102-5504 

Coxmsel for Respondent 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airports, Compliance and Field Operations, ACO-lOO 

UM^^L 

forgerson 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Field Operations
<PAGE>
                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


                                 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2001 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof
(the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I R. Keith Wilt, Vice President
& Treasurer of the Company, certify, that:

         1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

         2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the company.


                                             /s / R. Keith Wilt
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Name:  R. Keith Wilt
                                             Title: Vice President & Treasurer
                                                    (Principal Financial
                                                    Officer)
                                             Date:  October 11, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 519 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 519

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 
                         religious intolerance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 12, 1994

 Mr. Dornan (for himself, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
 Gingrich, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Hyde, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Armey, Mr. McCollum, 
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Goss, Mr. Packard, Mr. Crane, Mr. Fields 
 of Texas, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Kim, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Solomon, 
Mr. Bunning, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Stump, Mr. Livingston, Mr. 
    Duncan, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Talent, Mr. Royce, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. 
 Sundquist) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 
                         religious intolerance.

Whereas the rights, liberties, and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution of 
        the United States are guaranteed to all citizens regardless of their 
        religious beliefs or affiliations; and
Whereas individuals of all religious denominations have made substantial 
        contributions to the establishment, preservation, and protection of the 
        system of government of the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the House of Representatives strongly opposes anti-
        Christian bigotry and all other forms of religious intolerance 
        and condemns all manifestations and expressions of religious 
        bigotry and intolerance;
            (2) the House condemns individuals and organizations that 
        foster intolerance, suspicion, hatred, or fear of individuals 
        who--
                    (A) hold values rooted in religious tenets;
                    (B) participate in the political process to ensure 
                that the laws of the Nation reflect such values; and
                    (C) advocate public policies that are respectful of 
                such values; and
            (3) it shall be the policy of the House to seek to ensure 
        that the rights of individuals to participate in the political 
        process of the Nation are not infringed on the basis of their 
        religious beliefs or affiliations.
                                 <all>
```
To: Dennis Mills/AWA/FAA@FAA

Cc: "Joel Murdock" <jmmurdock@fedex.com>, "Mark Hansen" <jmhansen@fedex.com>, "Jim 

Bowman" <jlbowman@fedex.com>, "Robert Moreau" <rdmoreau@fedex.com>

Date: 05/08/2012 11:19 AM

Subject: FedEx EFVS Disptach Exemption Request--Status change

Hello Dennis—

FedEx Express would like to officially withdraw our pending request for an EFVS Dispatch Exemption.  

We are requesting to withdraw the exemption at this time for internal reasons.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you!

Josh

Josh Kendrick

Managing Director

FedEx Flight Technical Operations/Regulatory Compliance

jkendrick@fedex.com

C: +1 901 579 9018

O: +1 901 224 0802

3131 Democrat Road

Building C173

Memphis, TN 38118‐0102
#### FARMERS’ BANK of the STATE of DELAWARE *vs.*JOSEPH BROWN, garnishee of CHARLES STIDHAM.

If money be placed in A’s hands by B to pay his debt to C , he is liable to C. in *assumpsit,*but cannot be attached as the garnishee of B.

Attachmemt. Plea nulla bona.

*Frame*for plff.

proposed to prove by John Manlove, Esq., cashier of the Bank, an admission of Brown that Stidham had placed money in his hands to pay this debt due the Bank.

*Bates*for the garnishee objected.

Brown is not the debtor of Stidham. The debt (if any) is due from him to the Bank, for money had and received to their use, and for which assumpsit would lie at the suit of the Bank. A recovery had here could not be pleaded in bar to such an action.

*Frame,*for plaintiff.

*Bates,*for Brown.

*Per curiam.*

This evidence is not applicable to the case. The prooff offered is not that Brown owes Stidham, but that he owes the Bank; and his liability to the Bank cannot be enforced in this way„-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,126
<INVENTORY>                                     31,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               417,986
<PP&E>                                       5,204,921
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,233,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,533,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          469,811
<BONDS>                                        834,871
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,510
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                        650,00
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,533,576
<SALES>                                        829,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               826,046
<CGS>                                          273,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  572,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                    77,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            151,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   151,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1271

To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing Act

of 1959 to exclude from consideration as income rebates granted under

New Jersey law for the payment of State property taxes on homesteads.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. BRADLEY) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the

Housing Act of 1959 to exclude from consideration as

income rebates granted under New Jersey law for the

payment of State property taxes on homesteads.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homestead Rebate Ex5 emption Act of 1993’’.
2

•S 1271 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF PROPERTY TAX REBATES FROM IN2 COME.

3 (a) AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSING

4 ACT OF 1937.—Section 3(b)(5) of the United States

5 Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(5)) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ‘‘and’’ at

8 the end;

9 (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

11 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub12 paragraph:

13 ‘‘(H) any amounts received after January

14 1, 1993, by the family in the form of a rebate

15 for property taxes paid on a homestead or paid

16 through rent on a homestead under the New

17 Jersey ‘Homestead Property Tax Rebate Act of

18 1990’ (N.J.S.A., c. 54:4—8.57 to 54:4—8.66),

19 or any successor provision.’’.

20 (b) AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ACT OF 1959.—

21 Section 202(c)(3) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.

22 1701q(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the follow23 ing: ‘‘The term ‘monthly income’ does not include any

24 amounts received after January 1, 1993, by the person

25 in the form of a rebate for property taxes paid on a home26 stead or paid through rent on a homestead under the New
3

•S 1271 IS

1 Jersey ‘Homestead Property Tax Rebate Act of 1990’

2 (N.J.S.A., c. 54:4—8.57 to 54:4—8.66), or any successor

3 provision.’’.

Æ
MONTHLY MAINTENANCE LOG

month: year: 

UAS #: Date Issue

Discovere

d

Date Issue

Addressed Issue Description & MaintenanceConducted

Maintenance Performedby:

Print & Sign

Software Updates

Airframe

Engines

Propellers

Camera Gimbal

Landing Gear

Vibration Dampening

Other: