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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 322 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 322

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 22, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall be 
considered to have taken the bill (H.R. 1025) to provide for a waiting period 
before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national 
instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers 
before the transfer of any firearm, with a Senate amendment thereto, from the 
Speaker's table, to have disagreed to the Senate amendment, and to have agreed 
to the request of the Senate for a conference thereon. The requirement of clause 
4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to a 
resolution reported on the legislative day of November 22, 1993, providing for 
the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany that bill.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, David W. Qualls, Chief Financial Officer of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, based on my knowledge:





| | (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




Dated: December 18, 2002

/s/    DAVID W.
QUALLSDavid W.
Qualls Chief Financial
Officer
#### Sandolio ALVAREZ, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 38673.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 217 So.2d 157.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                        TO THE ARTICLES OF
                         INCORPORATION OF
                          DIGITAL POWER
                         HOLDING COMPANY

     We, the undersigned, David C. Merrell, President, and Charles Johnson,
Secretary/Treasurer, of DIGITAL POWER HOLDING COMPANY, a Nevada corporation
(the "corporation"), do hereby certify: 

                                I

     The Articles of Incorporation of the corporation shall be amended as
follows: 

     The foregoing amendment was adopted by the shareholders of the
corporation at a meeting held April 16th, 1996. 

                               I I

     Pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the shareholders of the
corporation on April 16th, 1996 the 20,521,776 outstanding shares of the
corporation were reversed split on a basis of 100 for 1, retaining the
authorized shares at 27,000,000 and the par value at one cent ($.01) per
share, with the appropriate adjustments being made in the additional paid in
capital and stated capital accounts of the corporation. 

                              I I I

     The number of shares entitled to vote on the amendment was 20,521,776. 

                               I V

     The number of shares voted in favor of the amendment was 15,000,000 with
none opposing and none abstaining. 

                                      /s/David C. Merrell, President

                                      /s/Charles Johnson, Sec/Treasurer
STATE OF UTAH       )
                    ) ss
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )

     On the 7th day of May, 1996, personally appeared before me, a Notary
Public, David C. Merrell, who acknowledged that he is the President of Digital
Power Holdings Company, and that he is authorized to and did execute the above
instrument. 

                                     /s/Michelle M. Brown
                                     NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF UTAH        )
                     ) ss
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE  )

     On the 7th day of May, 1996, personally appeared before me, a Notary
Public, Charles Johnson, who acknowledged that she is the Secretary/Treasurer
of Digital Power Holdings Company, and that he is authorized to and did
execute the above instrument. 
 

                                     /s/Michelle M. Brown
                                     NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires September 20, 1996
State of Utah
July 1, 2015

Mr. R ussell Hughes

1500 Foster Drive

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Dear Mr. Hughes :

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

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

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

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your June 26, 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2015

-

2511 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you mus t send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sec tions 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 reques t.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before th e proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2020304EN.01002401.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/24

---

Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)

(Case T-481/20)

(2020/C 304/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CoolTUBE — Application for registration No 18 022 606

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 1755/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,056
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,741
<INVENTORY>                                     15,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,929
<PP&E>                                          15,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,190
<BONDS>                                          1,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,009
<SALES>                                         66,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,071
<CGS>                                           37,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (343)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (343)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-18-033]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

July 19, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1378 and 1379 (Final) (Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by August 1, 2018.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 10, 2018.

William Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-15106 Filed 7-11-18; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Joel Lee MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. Kathleen MATTHEWS, Appellee.

No. 77-1469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bruce M. Boiko, Miami, for appellant.

Mark J. Feldman, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Reback v. Reback,*296 So.2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Gordon v. Gordon,*335 So.2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *McAllister v. McAllister,*345 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Acadian Consultants Corp.
ACT Medical Record Services, Inc.
APS Services Acquisition Corp.
Associate Record Technician Services Acquisition Corp.
B&B (Baltimore-Washington) Acquisition Corp.
California Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
CH Acquisition Corp.
Computer Central Corporation
DeBari Associates Acquisition Corp.
Delaware Major Acquisition Corp.
Deliverex Acquisition Corp.
Deliverex Sacramento Acquisition Corp.
DISC Acquisition Corp.
DPAS Acquisition Corp.
Imagent Acquisition Corp.
Information Management Acquisition Corp.
Input of Texas, Inc.
Leonard Archives Acquisition Corp.
Lifo Systems, Inc.
MAVRICC Management Systems, Inc.
Medicopy Acquisition Corp.
Micro Publication Systems, Inc.
Minnesota Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
MMS Escrow and Transfer Agency, Inc.
Permanent Records Acquisition Corp.
Premier Accusation Corp.
QCS Inet Acquisition Corp.
Quality Copy Acquisition Corp.
RAC (California) Acquisition Corp.
Recordex Acquisition Corp.
Researchers Acquisition Corp.
Robert A. Cook Acquisition Corp.
Rust Federal Systems, Inc.
Texas Medical Record Service Acquisition Corp.
The Rust Consulting Group, Inc.
ZIA Information Analysis Group, Inc.
Zip Shred Canada Acquisition Corp.
#### Robert Lee REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 11, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph W. DeMember, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Summerson v. State (Fla.App.1967) 200 So.2d 594.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
House Calendar No. 122

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 311

[Report No. 103–369]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3450)

Agreement.to implement the North American Free Trade

NOVEMBER 16, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 122

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 311

[Report No. 103–369]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3450) to implement the North

American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 16, 1993

Mr. BEILENSON, 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 (H.R. 3450) to

implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.

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 consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 3450) to implement the North

6 American Free Trade Agreement. The first reading of the

7 bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

8 the bill and against its consideration are waived. General
2

HRES 311 RH

1 debate shall proceed without intervening motion, shall be

2 confined to the bill, and shall not exceed eight hours, with

3 two hours for debate in favor of the bill controlled by Rep4 resentative Rostenkowski of Illinois or a designee, two

5 hours for debate in opposition to the bill controlled by

6 Representative Gephardt of Missouri or a designee, two

7 hours for debate in favor of the bill controlled by Rep8 resentative Michel of Illinois or a designee, and two hours

9 for debate in opposition to the bill controlled by Represent10 ative Solomon of New York or a designee. Pursuant to

11 section 151(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, after general

12 debate the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

13 House. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act

14 of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as

15 ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening

16 motion.
# C_2022432EN.01003001.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Protectoplus v EUIPO (Li-SAFE)

(Case T-795/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Li-SAFE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application)

(2022/C 432/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Protectoplus (Rendsburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 845/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Protectoplus GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Protectoplus GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
# C_2021471EN.01001501.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/15

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2021 by sprd.net AG against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 12 February 2021 in Case T-19/20, sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor

(Case C-236/21 P)

(2021/C 471/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: sprd.net AG (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Shirtlabor GmbH

By order of 1 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### Katherine Trusievitz, Individually and as Parent and Guardian of Jennifer M. Trusievitz, an Infant, Respondent, v Bath Central School District, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[656 NYS2d 987]

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the same Memorandum as in *Hargraves v Bath Cent. School Dist.*(237 AD2d 977 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.
#### Diahann Carroll, Appellant-Respondent, v Lawrence R. Eno, Respondent-Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 368]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered June 18, 1996, after a nonjury trial, which, *inter alia,*dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action for a declaration that the subject agreement violates the common-law rule against unreasonable restraints and the statutory rule against perpetuities, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that the agreement does not violate either such rule, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly held that the subject agreement, which gives defendant a preemptive right to purchase plaintiff s cooperative apartment at the price she had purchased it for as an *103insider in 1968 in exchange for whatever right defendant had at that time to purchase the apartment, is not an unreasonable restraint on alienation *(see, Wildenstein & Co. v Wallis,*79 NY2d 641, 651-652). The great disparity between the insider price and present market value does not make the restraint unreasonable, since the parties had agreed upon the price formula at the time the agreement was executed, the transfer could have occurred at any time thereafter, and plaintiff had the benefit of tax advantages and income from subleases over the years *(see, Allen v Biltmore Tissue Corp., 2*NY2d 534, 542-543). Moreover, this disparity is lessened somewhat by construing the agreement, as the trial court properly did, as providing for reimbursement of the money plaintiff spent for improvements and assessments. The remaining points in contention were also properly disposed of. The agreement clearly limits defendant’s preemptive right to the "measuring lives” of the parties themselves, and thus does not violate the rule against perpetuities. It would not be a violation of the condition of the agreement that defendant occupy the subject apartment were he thereafter to sell the other two apartments he owns in the building. Defendant’s counterclaim for specific performance was properly dismissed upon a finding, supported by the record, that plaintiff has not tried to sell the apartment. We modify only to declare explicitly the enforceability of the agreement, implicit in the trial court’s disposition *(see, Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2021338EN.01001302.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/13

---

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

(Case C-350/21)

(2021/C 338/16)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Spetsializirana prokuratura

Questions referred

Is national legislation (Article 251b(1) of the Zakon za elektronnite saobshtenia (Law on electronic communications)) providing for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic data (traffic data and location data of users of electronic means of communication) for a period of 6 months in order to fight serious crime compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, (1) read in combination with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof, provided that the national legislation contains certain safeguards?

Is national legislation (Article 159a of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure)) which does not limit access to traffic data to what is strictly necessary and does not grant the persons whose traffic data are accessed by the law enforcement authorities the right to be notified thereof, provided that that does not impede criminal proceedings, or the right to a legal remedy against unlawful access compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in combination with Article 5(1) and recital 11 thereof?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 13 Volume 036 P. 63).

---