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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
  H. RES. 76

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
 investigations and studies by the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. McDermott 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 Standards of Official 
     Conduct in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (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 $350,000.
    (b) Not more than $200,000 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 $5,000 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 on 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>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000750304
<NAME> HOUSING PROGRAMS LTD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         948,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               948,476
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,312,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,016,717)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,312,532
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               570,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               710,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,027,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,167,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,167,717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,167,717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
House Calendar No. 200

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 501

[Report No. 103–647]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1357) to

for other purposes.distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, andand the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians asthe Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indiansreaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of

AUGUST 1, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 200

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 501

[Report No. 103–647]

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1357) to reaffirm and clarify

the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa

Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally

recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 1, 1994

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

printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1357) to reaffirm

and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River

Band of Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized

Indian tribes, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider-
2

HRES 501 RH

1 ation of the bill (S. 1357) to reaffirm and clarify the Fed2 eral relationships of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of

3 Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indi4 ans as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for

5 other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dis6 pensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill

7 and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con8 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

9 the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate

10 the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five11 minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered

12 as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

13 amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

14 to the House with such amendments as may have been

15 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

16 ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final pas17 sage without intervening motion except one motion to

18 recommit.
{In Archive} ExxonMobil MCU

Shaheerah Kelly to: christopherjlee, mohanrasthana, 

morrismuskett 07/18/2005 09:35 AM

Cc: Gerardo Rios

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US

To: christopherjlee@navajo.org, mohanrasthana@navajo.org, morrismuskett@navajo.org, 

Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

I just faxed the following documents to you. 

April 19, 1991 PSD permit

May 27, 2004 letter from ExxonMobil to EPA

June 10, 2004 fax from ExxonMobil to EPA

July 8, 2004 fax from ExxonMobil to EPA

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you do not receive everything. Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

Air Division, Permits Office

U S EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
# C_2023216EN.01001602.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 — Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation v European Commission, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-694/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Consumer protection - Directive 2006/42/EC - Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers from risks arising from the use of machinery - Measures adopted by the Kingdom of Sweden - Prohibition on the placing on the market of a type of pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit - Withdrawal of machines already placed on the market - Decision of the European Commission declaring the measures justified)

(2023/C 216/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Brunswick Bowling Products LLC, formerly Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corporation (represented by: R. Martens, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by M. Huttunen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: H. Eklinder, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, and subsequently by: H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brunswick Bowling Products LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
SERVED : MA Y 27 , 201 1 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTE RO F CAROLIN A BLU E AIR , LL C FA A DOCKE T NO . CPIOEAOOIO (Civi l Penalt y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2010-097 2 r < U T\!LN T O F 

### ^OHlATiO N 1 \ A 3:5 0

ORDE RO F CHIE F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E DISMISSIN G PROCEEDIN G WIT H PREJUDIC E B y lette r date dMa y 9 , 2011 , Respondent' s Representativ e state s tha t th e partie s "hav e reache dasettlemen t

i n th e matter" ' an dtha t

Responden t

withdravk' s it s "reques t

fo r aForma l Hearin g i n th e abov e reference dcase. " Accordingly , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 , thi s pro ceedin g i s dismisse dwith prejudice . Th e FA A shal l sen dth e Judg e an dth e Docke t acop y o f

an y compromis e orde r

o r final orde r assessin g civi l penalty . S O ORDERED .

li e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' The letter , receive dvi afacsimile on Ma y 9 , 2011 , i s not

accompaniedb

y acertificat

e o f service , bu

t include s a letter , signedby bot

h Respondent' s Representativ e an dComplainant' s Counsel , confirming th e term s o f asettlemen

t agreement , whic

h include Respondent' s filing, b y Ma y 9 , 2011 , " awithdrawa

l o f its reques t

fo r hearing. " Th e rule s requir e filing an dservic e by persona

l deliver y o r mail . 1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.210(a) , 13.211(a) . Partie s mus t ensur e tha t al l submission s ar

e properly file

dwit h the Hearing Docke

t an dserv e acopy , wit

h certificat e o f service , on al

l partie s an dthe Judge .' " '*' / '•j-''^wr'W . '?-\'.tf/ - g ^ A ' FA A Docket?^© . CPIOEAOOIO , t ^ (Civi l Penalt y A$!tion)

ORIO ] federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ^Independenc e Avenue , S.W . >yashingt<to , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , ^ ^ Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g Eugen e A. . McDonough , Respondent' ^ pKMSident,lM!illio

n Ai r Richmon d, /

TJ^ J 4G0Portu|eeRoa d Ipci^o^to^mationa l Airport |id&uM % 23250-241 7 tBL : 8PI422-370 0 PAX : it2-40 U ^ciiiaryi ^ Berman , Complainant' s Co u ^>ffic e ofJi e Begiona l Counse l iaste mRegio n |A^atV|^I|az a &ockaWapB6uIevar d Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 IBL : 718-553-325 8 FAX : 718-995-569 9 "th e Honojabt e Ronni e A . Yoder , i Chie f AdnUnistrativ e La w Judg e iJ.S/Depstoi^ t

o f Transportatio n '

• §mc e o f gearings , M-20 , Roo mE12-32 0 120 0 Nevil<asey Avenue , S.E . Washin|i^aD C 2059 0 L : Jte66-214 2 AX : 2(i-366-753 6

;,U.S.Mail . Eb

r servic e |9i]^^9y(liajPM^CHi..(30

0 lodependepc

e A ' 3591 ; mmoi : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk ,

M^''^tt»n.Cia>tk«Uo 4 ;i>&:<ii.«.JS . )BS& .
#### UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Appellant, v. TOWNSEND LUMBER COMPANY, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021422EN.01000802.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 10 August 2021 — GV v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

(Case C-488/21)

(2021/C 422/12)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GV

Defendants: Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office, Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland, Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the derived right of residence of a direct relative in the ascending line of a Union citizen worker pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) conditional on the continued dependency of that relative on the worker? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the derived right of residence of a direct relative in the ascending line of a Union citizen worker pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) conditional on the continued dependency of that relative on the worker?

| 2. | Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, where access to such payment would mean she is no longer dependent on the worker? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, where access to such payment would mean she is no longer dependent on the worker?

| 3. | Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, on the grounds that payment of the benefit will result in the family member concerned becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Directive 2004/38/EC preclude a host Member State from limiting access to a social assistance payment benefit by a family member of a Union citizen worker who enjoys a derived right of residence on the basis of her dependency on that worker, on the grounds that payment of the benefit will result in the family member concerned becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the State?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                          Exhibit 27
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,982
<INVENTORY>                                     17,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,582
<PP&E>                                          15,584
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,912
<BONDS>                                         14,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           36,790
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,084
<SALES>                                        220,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          132,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                74,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,999
<INCOME-TAX>                                       600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
        

</TABLE>
#### Douglas Clarence RAWLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-758.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 14, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY/ JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Juhasz v. Barton, 146 Fla. 484, 1 So.2d 476; State v. McCall, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 324; Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 392; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 213.
#### John G. JOHNSTONE, as the natural guardian of John Johnstone, a minor, and J. G. Johnstone, Individually, Appellant, v. Mark YODER, a minor, by his next friend and Father, James Yoder, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-79.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 10, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Johnny WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Engel, Aronson, Fried & Cohn, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that appellant is not entitled to relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### ALLGEYER *v.*CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

Contracts — Breach—Equity—Sufficiency of Proof.

In suit for money decree for damages for breach of alleged promises by defendant’s agents in connection with written . contract which had been fully performed by both parties, decree dismissing bill on ground that plaintiffs had failed to mahe case is affirmed, on appeal.

Appeal from Menominee; Driscoll (George 0.), J., presiding.

Submitted June 10, 1931.

(Docket No. 2, Calendar No. 35,587.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

*21Bill by Paul Allgeyer and another, copartners, against Chicago & North Western Railway Company, a corporation, for money decree. Bill dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*Meredith P. Sawyer*and *George Barstow,*for plaintiffs.

*Ryall &*Frost, for defendant.

Clark, J.

After negotiations continuing throughout the summer, the parties entered into a written contract on September 1, 1926, pursuant to which plaintiffs moved a sawmill from Wallace to Ladoga and cut for defendant a large number of logs and ties. The contract was fully performed on both sides.

Defendant owned much standing timber in that vicinity. It was the hope and perhaps the expectation of the parties that succeeding annual contracts for sawing might be made from year to year for several years, although it was recognized and understood on both sides that the venture was experimental. Negotiations were attempted and continued toward a succeeding contract but none was made.

The bill of complaint seeks a money decree for damages for breach of alleged promises of agents for defendant. There are also some allegations tending to charge fraud in the inducement to the contract. Although the bill prays no reformation of the contract, the matter is urged by appellants. The theory of joint adventure is also advanced. The bill was dismissed. Plaintiffs have appealed.

No question of law need be discussed.

*22Assuming plaintiffs’ various contentions to be before the court, the record supports none of them in fact. We agree with the trial court that plaintiffs did not make a case. It will profit no one to state more of the evidence.

The decree must be and it is affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements at September 30, 1996 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         263,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               282,934
<PP&E>                                          42,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,551
<OTHER-SE>                                    (47,307)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,294,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,382,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,382,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,382,470)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>